Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Reclassification of the Okaloosa Darter From Endangered to Threatened and Proposed Special Rule, 5263-5278 [2010-2007]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
revenue carloads terminating in any state in
any of the 3 preceding years.
Number of Respondents: 50.
Estimated Time per Response: 75 minutes.
Frequency: 7 respondents report monthly;
43 report quarterly.
Total Burden Hours (annually including all
respondents): 320 hours.
Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost: No ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burdens associated with this
collection have been identified.
Needs and Uses: The Surface
Transportation Board is, by statute,
responsible for the economic regulation of
common carrier rail transportation in the
United States and it is authorized to collect
information about rail costs and revenues
under 49 U.S.C. 11144 and 11145. Under 49
CFR 1244, a railroad is required to file
Waybill Sample information for all line-haul
revenue waybills terminating on its lines if
it did one of the following: (a) Terminated at
least 4,500 revenue carloads in any of the 3
preceding years; or (b) terminated at least 5%
of the revenue carloads terminating in any
state in any of the 3 preceding years. The
information in the Waybill Sample is used by
the Board, other Federal and state agencies,
and industry stakeholders to monitor traffic
flows and rate trends in the industry, and to
develop evidence in Board proceedings.
The expanded information gathered from
this proposed rule would permit the Board to
assess more accurately TIH traffic within the
United States, and specifically would be
beneficial in Three-Benchmark rail rate cases
involving TIH traffic. In those cases, the
parties would have more data to draw upon
when forming their comparison groups;
therefore, the parties could construct
comparison groups that would be more
comparable to the issue traffic. The
additional information would also assist the
Board in quantifying the magnitude of TIH
traffic, and would help the Board more
accurately measure the associated costs of
handling such traffic.
Retention Period: Information in this report
will be maintained on the Board’s Web site
for a minimum of 1 year and will be
otherwise maintained permanently.
[FR Doc. 2010–2150 Filed 2–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R4–ES–2008–0071; 92220–1113–
0000–C6]
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
RIN 1018—AW07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Reclassification
of the Okaloosa Darter From
Endangered to Threatened and
Proposed Special Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify the Okaloosa darter
(Etheostoma okaloosae) from
endangered to threatened under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). The
endangered designation no longer
correctly reflects the current status of
this fish due to a substantial
improvement in the species’ status. This
proposed action is based on a thorough
review of the best available scientific
and commercial data, which indicates a
substantial reduction in threats to the
species, significant habitat restoration in
most of the species’ range, and a stable
or increasing trend of darters in all
darter stream systems. We also propose
a special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act. This special rule would allow Eglin
Air Force Base to continue activities,
with a reduced regulatory burden, and
would provide a net benefit to the
Okaloosa darter. We are seeking
information, data and comments from
the public on this proposal.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to
consider your comments on this
proposed rule, they must be received on
or before April 5, 2010. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by March
19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0071.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–
ES–2008–0071; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don
Imm, Deputy Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City
Field Office, 1601 Balboa Ave., Panama
City, FL 32405; telephone (850) 769–
0552. Individuals who are hearingimpaired or speech-impaired may call
the Federal Information Relay Service at
(800) 877–8339 for TTY assistance 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comment Procedures
To ensure that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5263
as accurate and as effective as possible,
we request that you send relevant
information for our consideration. The
comments that will be most useful and
likely to influence our decisions are
those that are supported by data or peerreviewed studies and those that include
citations to, and analyses of, applicable
laws and regulations. Please make your
comments as specific as possible and
explain the basis for them. In addition,
please include sufficient information
with your comments to allow us to
authenticate any scientific or
commercial data you reference or
provide. In particular, we seek
comments concerning the following:
(1) Biological, trade, or other relevant
data concerning any threat (or lack
thereof) to the Okaloosa darter,
including whether or not climate change
is a threat to the Okaloosa darter;
(2) The location of any additional
populations of the Okaloosa darter;
(3) Additional information concerning
the range, distribution, and population
size and population trends of the
Okaloosa darter;
(4) Current or planned activities
within the geographic range of the
Okaloosa darter that may impact or
benefit the species including the
proposed toll bypass road; and
(5) Activities relevant to Okaloosa
darter and its habitat that are proposed
for inclusion in the special rule under
section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.).
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that a
determination as to whether any species
is a threatened or endangered species
must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data
available.’’
Prior to issuing a final rule on this
proposed action, we will take into
consideration all comments and any
additional information we receive. Such
information may lead to a final rule that
differs from this proposal. All comments
and recommendations, including names
and addresses, will become part of the
administrative record.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. If you submit a
comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. Please note that
comments posted to this Web site are
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5264
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
not immediately viewable. When you
submit a comment, the system receives
it immediately. However, the comment
will not be publically viewable until we
post it, which might not occur until
several days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
To ensure that the electronic docket for
this rulemaking is complete and all
comments we receive are publicly
available, we will post all hardcopy
submissions on https://
www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials
we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this proposed rule, will be available for
public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search
Documents box, enter, FWS–R4–ES–
2008–0071, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen,
select the type of documents you want
to view under the Document Type
heading.
(2) You can make an appointment
during normal business hours to view
the comments and materials in person at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Panama City Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides
for one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by the
date shown in the DATES section. We
will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before
the first hearing.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
Previous Federal Action
We proposed listing the Okaloosa
darter as endangered on January 15,
1973 (38 FR 1521) and listed the species
as endangered under the Act on June 4,
1973 (38 FR 14678) due to its extremely
limited range, habitat degradation, and
apparent competition from a possibly
introduced related species, the brown
darter. We completed a recovery plan
for the species on October 23, 1981, and
a revised recovery plan on October 26,
1998.
On June 21, 2005, we provided notice
in the Federal Register that we were
initiating a 5-year status review under
the Act for the Okaloosa darter (70 FR
35689). In that notice, we specifically
requested information on:
(1) The status of the Okaloosa darter
in areas outside the boundaries of Eglin
Air Force Base (AFB), Florida;
(2) Threats to the species and its
habitat, including the areas in the
Turkey Creek, Swift Creek, and East
Turkey Creek watersheds outside the
boundaries of Eglin AFB; and
(3) Conservation measures in these
same areas that may have benefited the
Okaloosa darter.
The 5-year status review was
completed in July 2007, and is available
on our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/
okaloosa_darterfinal.pdf.
Background
The Okaloosa darter, Etheostoma
okaloosae, is a member of the family
Percidae. It is a small, perch-like fish
(maximum size is 49 millimeters (mm)
(1.93 inches (in.)) Standard Length) that
is characterized by a well-developed
humeral spot, a series of five to eight
rows of small spots along the sides of
the body, and the first anal spine being
longer than the second. General body
coloration varies from red-brown to
green-yellow dorsally, and lighter
ventrally, although breeding males have
a bright orange submarginal stripe on
the first dorsal fin (Burkhead et al. 1992,
p. 23).
The Okaloosa darter is known to
occur in only six clear stream systems
that drain into two Choctawhatchee Bay
bayous in Walton and Okaloosa
Counties in northwest Florida. They
have been found only in the tributaries
and main channels of Toms, Turkey,
Mill, Swift, East Turkey, and Rocky
Creeks. Approximately 90 percent of the
457 square kilometer (176 square mile)
watershed drainage area is under the
management of Eglin AFB, and we
estimate that 98.7 percent of the darter’s
extant range is within the boundaries of
Eglin AFB. The remainder of the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
watershed and extant range is within
the urban complex of the Cities of
Niceville and Valparaiso (USAF 2006,
p. 3–1).
Longleaf pine-wiregrass-red oak
sandhill communities dominate the
vegetation landscape in Okaloosa darter
watershed basins. These areas are
characterized by high sand ridges where
soil nutrients are low and woodland fire
is a regular occurrence. Where water
seeps from these hills, acid bog
communities of Sphagnum sp.
(sphagnum moss), Sarracenia sp.
(pitcher plants), and other plants
adapted to low nutrient soils develop. In
other areas, the water emerges from
seepage springs directly into clear
flowing streams where variation of both
temperature and flow is moderated by
the deep layers of sand. The streams
support a mixture of Mayaca fluviatilis
(bog moss), Scirpus etuberculatus
(bulrush), Orontium aquaticum (golden
club), Sparganium americanum (burrweed), Potamogeton diversifolius
(pondweed), Eleocharis sp. (spikerush),
and other aquatic and emergent plants.
Okaloosa darters typically inhabit the
margins of moderate to fast flowing
streams where detritus, root mats, and
vegetation are present. Historic densities
averaged about two darters per meter
(3.28 feet) of stream length while more
recent abundance estimates show an
increase to an average of 2.9 darters per
meter (Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 3;
USAF 2006, p. 3–1). They have not been
collected in areas where there is no
current or in open sandy areas in the
middle of the stream channel. The
creeks with Okaloosa darters are
generally shaded over most of their
courses, with temperatures ranging from
20° to 22° Celsius (68° to 72°
Fahrenheit) in the winter (Tate 2008,
pers. comm.) to 22° to 24° Celsius (72°
to 75° Fahrenheit) in the summer
(Mettee and Crittenden 1977, p. 5).
Okaloosa darters feed primarily on fly
larvae (Diptera sp.) mayfly nymphs
(Ephemeroptera sp.), and caddis fly
(Trichoptera sp.) larvae (Ogilvie 1980,
as referenced in Burkhead et al. 1992, p.
26). The breeding season extends from
late March through October, although it
usually peaks in April. Spawning pairs
have been videographed attaching one
or two eggs to vegetation, and observed
attaching eggs to woody debris and root
mats (Collete and Yerger 1962, p. 226;
Burkhead et al. 1994, p. 81). Ogilvie
(1980, as referenced in Burkhead et al.
1992, p. 26) found a mean of 76 ova
(unfertilized eggs) and 29 mature ova in
201 female Okaloosa darters, although
these numbers may underrepresent
annual fecundity as the prolonged
spawning season is an indication of
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
fractional spawning (eggs develop and
mature throughout the spawning
season). Estimates of longevity range
from 2 to 4 years (Burkhead et al. 1992,
p. 27; Tate 2008, pers. comm.).
Recovery
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
threatened and endangered species
unless we determine that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the
species. The Act directs that, to the
maximum extent practicable, we
incorporate into each plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions
that may be necessary to achieve the
plan’s goals for conservation and
survival of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria,
which when met would result in a
determination, in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 of the Act, that
the species be removed from the list;
and
(3) Estimates of the time required and
cost to carry out the plan.
However, revisions to the list (adding,
removing, or reclassifying a species)
must reflect determinations made in
accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and
4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires
that the Secretary determine whether a
species is threatened or endangered (or
not) because of one or more of five
threat factors. Therefore, recovery
criteria must indicate when a species is
no longer threatened or endangered by
any of the five factors. In other words,
objective, measurable criteria, or
recovery criteria, contained in recovery
plans must indicate when an analysis of
the five threat factors under 4(a)(1)
would result in a determination that a
species is no longer threatened or
endangered. Section 4(b) requires the
determination made under section
4(a)(1) as to whether a species is
threatened or endangered because of
one or more of the five factors be based
on the best available science.
Thus, while recovery plans are
intended to provide guidance to the
Service, states, and other partners on
methods of minimizing threats to listed
species and on criteria that may be used
to determine when recovery is achieved,
they are not regulatory documents and
cannot substitute for the determinations
and promulgation of regulation required
under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to
remove a species from the list made
under section 4(a)(1) must be based on
the best scientific and commercial data
available at the time of the
determination, regardless of whether
that information differs from the
recovery plan.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
In the course of implementing
conservation actions for a species, new
information is often gained that requires
recovery efforts to be modified
accordingly. There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species,
and recovery may be achieved without
all criteria being fully met. For example,
one or more criteria may have been
exceeded while other criteria may not
have been accomplished, yet the Service
may judge that, overall, the threats have
been minimized sufficiently, and the
species is robust enough, to reclassify
the species from endangered to
threatened or perhaps delist the species.
In other cases, recovery opportunities
may have been recognized that were not
known at the time the recovery plan was
finalized. These opportunities may be
used instead of methods identified in
the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species
may be learned that was not known at
the time the recovery plan was
finalized. The new information may
change the extent that criteria need to be
met for recognizing recovery of the
species. Overall, recovery of species is
a dynamic process requiring adaptive
management, planning, implementing,
and evaluating the degree of recovery of
a species that may, or may not, fully
follow the guidance provided in a
recovery plan.
Thus, while the recovery plan
provides important guidance on the
direction and strategy for recovery, and
indicates when a rulemaking process
may be initiated, the determination to
remove a species from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Species
is ultimately based on an analysis of
whether a species is no longer
threatened or endangered. The
following discussion provides a brief
review of recovery planning for the
Okaloosa darter as well as an analysis of
the recovery criteria and goals as they
relate to evaluating the status of the
species.
The recovery plan for the Okaloosa
darter was approved on October 23,
1981 (Service 1981, 18 pp.) and revised
on October 26, 1998 (Service 1998, 42
pp.). The recovery plan identifies a
recovery objective of downlisting, and
eventually delisting, the Okaloosa darter
by enabling wild populations capable of
coping with natural habitat fluctuations
to persist indefinitely in the six stream
systems they inhabit by restoring and
protecting stream habitat, water quality,
and water quantity. The Okaloosa darter
may be considered for reclassification
from endangered to threatened
(downlisted) when:
(1) Instream flows and historical
habitat of stream systems have been
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5265
protected through management plans,
conservation agreements, easements or
acquisitions or both;
(2) Eglin AFB has and is
implementing an effective habitat
restoration program to control erosion
from roads, clay pits, and open ranges;
(3) The Okaloosa darter population is
stable or increasing and comprised of
two plus age-classes in all six stream
systems for 5 consecutive years;
(4) The range of the Okaloosa darter
has not decreased at all historical
monitoring sites; and
(5) No foreseeable threats exist that
would impact the survival of the
species.
For more information on the recovery
plan for the Okaloosa darter, a copy of
the plan is posted on our Web site at
https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/
970407.pdf.
Each of the above criteria for
downlisting the Okaloosa darter to
threatened has been met, as described
below. Additionally, the level of
protection currently afforded to the
species and its habitat and the current
status of threats are outlined in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section below.
Downlisting Criterion (1): Instream
Flows and Historical Habitat of Stream
Systems Have Been Protected Through
Management Plans, Conservation
Agreements, Easements or Acquisitions
or Both
Water quality, water quantity and
stream habitat have been adequately
protected or restored for the Okaloosa
darter. The Okaloosa darter’s extant
range occurs almost exclusively (98.7
percent) within the boundaries of Eglin
AFB. This affords the species
considerable protections from
development and large-scale habitat
disturbances. Eglin AFB is
implementing an effective habitat
restoration program to control erosion
from roads, borrow pits (areas where
materials like sand or gravel are
removed for use at another location),
and cleared test ranges. Since 1995,
Eglin AFB has restored 317 sites
covering 196.2 hectares (ha) (484.8 acres
(ac)) that were eroding into Okaloosa
darter streams. All 38 borrow pits
within Okaloosa darter drainages are
now stabilized (59.3 ha; 146.5 ac)
(USAF 2005, p. 3–18). The other 279
sites (136.9 ha; 338.3 ac) included in the
total area are characterized as non-point
sources (pollution created from larger
processes and not from one
concentrated point source, like excess
sediment from a construction site
washing into a stream after a rain) of
stream sedimentation. Eglin AFB
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5266
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
estimates that these efforts have reduced
soil loss from roughly 69,000 tons/year
in darter watersheds in 1994 to
approximately 3,000 tons/year in 2004
(Pizzalotto 2005, pers. comm.). As of
2006, Eglin AFB had completed about
95 percent of the erosion control
projects identified for the darter
watersheds (USAF 2006, p. 3–5).
Restoration activities began earlier in
the Boggy Bayou drainages.
Accordingly, darter numbers increased
in the Boggy Bayou drainages earlier
than in the Rocky Bayou drainages.
Increases in darter numbers over the
past 10 years generally track the
cumulative area restored in that
timeframe (Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 9).
Many road crossing structures have
been eliminated as part of Eglin AFB’s
restoration activities. Of the 152 road
crossings that previously existed in
Okaloosa darter drainages, 57 have been
eliminated: 28 in Boggy Bayou streams,
and 29 in Rocky Bayou streams. Most of
these were likely barriers to fish passage
or problems for stream channel stability,
and removing them has improved
habitat and reduced population
fragmentation. Of the remaining 95 road
crossings, we have determined that 21
are barriers to fish passage. Many of
these are culverts with the downstream
end perched above the stream bed,
precluding the upstream movement of
fish during normal and low-flow
conditions. Ten of the 21 barriers are of
little to no adverse consequence to
darter habitat connectivity because they
occur on the outskirts of the current
range or immediately adjacent to
another barrier or impoundment.
However, darters downstream of the 11
remaining barriers cannot move
upstream during normal and low-flow
conditions.
Impoundments may also fragment
darter habitat and populations. Like
road-crossing barriers to passage, many
of the 32 impoundments within the
darter’s range are located within reaches
from which darters are extirpated or are
near the margins of the extant range.
Only three impoundments, one each in
the Toms Creek, Turkey Creek, and
Rocky Creek basins, separate more than
1 kilometer (km) (0.62 miles (mi)) of
stream from the rest of the stream
network in the basin.
In FY 2007, Eglin AFB restored
portions of Mill Creek. Staff from Eglin
Natural Resources, the Eglin golf course,
and the Service determined that it was
feasible to restore all impoundments
upstream of Plew Lake, the largest
impoundment on the system, to freeflowing streams and to remove all but
one of the culverts that convey the
stream underneath fairways on the golf
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
course. The Service prepared the
designs for the restoration, and Eglin
AFB and Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC)
secured funding for the work, which
was completed in May 2007. Present in
the smallest of the six darter
watersheds, the darter population in
Mill Creek is probably most vulnerable
to extirpation. We anticipate that
restoration at Mill Creek will secure a
viable population in this system. Eglin
and FWC also secured funding for
removal of the abandoned railroad
crossing of Little Rocky Creek and
completed the removal in May 2007.
These two projects eliminated five fish
passage barriers and three
impoundments, restoring approximately
3 km (1.8 mi) of stream habitat.
Accomplishments have been made in
recovering Okaloosa darter habitat, and
the Service continues to work with
Eglin AFB, the City of Niceville, and
Okaloosa and Walton Counties to
restore additional habitat through the
removal and replacement of road
crossings and impoundments
throughout the darter’s range.
The management plans of several
agencies apply to streams in the range
of the Okaloosa darter and are being
implemented to protect this fish’s water
quality and quantity and its overall
habitat. Probably the most influential of
these is Eglin’s Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plan (INRMP)
(USAF 2007), including the Final
Threatened and Endangered Species
Component Plan (USAF 2006). The
INRMP is updated every 5 years in
consultation with the Service and FWC
(see Factor D. under the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section
below for further detail and description
of Department of Defense (DOD)
protections, and the Available
Conservation Measures section for
Endangered Species Act protections).
The INRMP defines goals and specific
objectives for managing natural
resources on the base. The primary goal
of Okaloosa darter management on Eglin
AFB is to provide the highest level of
capability and flexibility to the military
testing and training mission while
meeting the legal requirements of the
Endangered Species Act, Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other
applicable laws. Another goal of the
2007 INRMP is to maintain or restore
hydrologic processes in streams,
floodplains, and wetlands when
feasible. The specific objectives of
Okaloosa darter management on Eglin
AFB include:
(1) Downlist the Okaloosa darter from
endangered to threatened by the end of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2007 and delist the darter by the end of
2012;
(2) Complete the restoration of Mill
Creek for Okaloosa darter by 2008;
(3) Annually restore 2 fish passage
barriers from the 20 identified sites in
Okaloosa darter drainages as funding
allows;
(4) Develop a public information and
awareness program for threatened and
endangered species on Eglin AFB that
have greater potential to be impacted by
public activities, such as Okaloosa
darters;
(5) Complete a program by 2010 that
would include an A3 class (combined
with Endangered Species Act class),
informational brochures, and portable
display boards;
(6) Cooperate with the City of
Niceville, Okaloosa County, and private
landowners adjacent to Eglin AFB to
recover the Okaloosa darter;
(7) Identify and rehabilitate 150 soil
erosion sites that have the potential to
impact threatened and endangered
species (Gulf sturgeon and Okaloosa
darter) habitat by 2011; and
(8) Train and use Okaloosa darter
monitoring crews and aquatic
monitoring crews to survey and report
the presence of invasive nonnative
plants and animals during their regular
monitoring activities and treat invasive
nonnative plants as necessary.
In 2005, the Service, Eglin’s Natural
Resources Branch, the Nature
Conservancy, and the FWC signed an
agreement to cooperate in the
stewardship of aquatic systems on lands
of the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem
Partnership (GCPEP) in western Florida.
GCPEP’s Aquatic Team agreed to
initially assign priority to strategies and
projects that contribute to the recovery
of the Okaloosa darter. We are working
with GCPEP to use stream restoration
techniques and management actions
that have been established for Okaloosa
darter watersheds on partner lands.
The Three Rivers Resource
Conservation and Development Council
is a nonprofit organization set up to
conserve the natural resources for, and
to improve the overall economic
condition of, rural and urban citizens.
The Council is composed of
representatives from the county
Commissions and Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, and includes
three members at large from Escambia,
Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay,
Washington, and Holmes Counties in
Florida. The Council has developed an
Area Plan (2003–2008) which includes:
(1) A natural resources goal of
encouraging proper management use
and protection of the natural resource
base;
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) An objective to assist local military
bases in conservation planning efforts;
(3) A strategy to continue a non-point
project to control erosion with Eglin
AFB; and
(4) Several projects funded for 2008
that will assist with Okaloosa darter
restoration.
The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) (2003)
classifies all streams in the range of the
Okaloosa darter as Class III waters for
administration of the Clean Water Act.
Class III waters are used for recreation,
propagation, and maintenance of a
healthy, well-balanced population of
fish and wildlife. Although no streams
in the Okaloosa darter’s range are
designated as impaired in DEP’s 2003
Basin Status Report, six stream
segments are on the ‘‘3c planning list,’’
which means that ‘‘enough data and
information are present to determine
that one or more designated uses may
not be attained according to the
Planning List methodology.’’ The six
segments are:
(1) Anderson Branch (Turkey Creek
tributary);
(2) Lower Turkey Creek (including
South Branch near the City of Niceville
landfill and the rest of the basin
downstream to Boggy Bayou);
(3) Mill Creek;
(4) Shaw Still Branch (Swift Creek
Basin);
(5) Little Rocky Creek; and
(6) Open Branch (Rocky Creek Basin).
All six segments are considered
potentially impaired using a set of three
biological indicators based upon aquatic
insect samples. DEP characterized a site
on South Branch near the landfill as
severely limited by pollutants from the
landfill (Ray 2001, p. 1).
Using aquatic insect sampling
methods and indicators comparable to
DEP’s, we sampled 42 sites in the
darter’s range (Thom and Herod 2005,
pp. 4–3 thru 4–17). About 26 sites
appeared healthy, 4 were suspect, and
12 were impaired. Three small darter
basins, Mill Creek, Swift Creek, and East
Turkey Creek, had the highest
percentage of impaired sites. Several
sites in these three basins, plus a site on
South Branch near the Niceville landfill,
also had unusually high stream
conductivity measurements, which is
generally an indicator of degraded water
quality (Thom and Herod 2005, p. 5–3).
It appears likely that the wastewater
treatment sprayfields located near the
headwaters of East Turkey Creek and
Swift Creek are adversely affecting
water quality, as this is the principal
non-forested land use in the area. The
Okaloosa darter recovery plan identifies
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
wastewater treatment sprayfields as
potential sources of habitat degradation.
In 2007, the Service, along with the
U.S. Geological Survey, Loyola
University, and Eglin AFB, initiated a
3-year research project to
comprehensively assess water quality
data for these two streams. Preliminary
samples show unusually high
conductivity and salinity—an indication
of wastewater introduction. Water
quality data will be compared to darter
population status and trends
information. This will enable us to
identify the problems and recommend
corrective actions that will prevent
future declines in Okaloosa darter
populations. Elimination of stressors
originating from these sprayfields will
prevent continued declines in Okaloosa
darter populations. It will also achieve
recovery objectives outlined in the
recovery plan (Objectives 2.2, 3.2, 3.2.2),
and meet a critical delisting criterion
(1F).
The Eglin golf course dominates land
use in the Mill Creek Basin. Along with
West Long Creek in the Rocky Creek
Basin, these are the same drainages
where monitoring suggests darter
numbers have been declining in recent
years. As noted above, the Service and
Eglin AFB have recently completed a
habitat restoration project in the portion
of Mill Creek that runs through the Eglin
golf course. Work is ongoing to assess
causes of declines in East Turkey and
West Long Creeks.
The Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance
(a citizen’s group), along with
supporting state and Federal agencies, is
implementing a program called
‘‘Breaking New Ground,’’ which is a set
of place-based air and watershed action
plans for the Choctawhatchee River and
Bay watershed. These plans address
water quality monitoring, point- and
non-point source pollution, growth
management, water supply, education,
and citizen involvement in all
Choctawhatchee Bay watersheds,
including the darter drainages. This
planning effort has resulted in the
funding of studies to assess point and
non-point source water pollution in the
basin, including darter watersheds, and
is expected to continue to assist in
identifying and addressing potential
long-term water quality and supply
issues in the watershed, which is a
positive step towards securing
permanent protections for Okaloosa
darter water quality and quantity.
In addition, the Northwest Florida
Water Management District (NWFWMD)
(in conjunction with the DEP) has a
Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) Plan that
addresses water issues in the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5267
Choctawhatchee River and Bay System,
including the projected water supply
needs of the coastal portions of
Okaloosa and Walton Counties.
Protecting water-dependent endangered
species and their habitats are integral
components of the SWIM Plan. In its
water supply plan for the counties that
encompass the range of the darter, the
NWFWMD examines the water sources
that could supply growing human water
demands in the region (Bartel et al.
2000). Depending on its magnitude and
spatial distribution, substantial new use
of the Sand and Gravel Aquifer could
diminish stream flow in the darter
streams; however, the potential well
fields that the NWFWMD identified are
located south and west of the darter
drainages.
The opportunities for easements or
acquisitions or both to protect the
Okaloosa darter are limited, because
98.7 percent of the extant range is on
Federal land. Because Eglin AFB and
others have demonstrated a
commitment to recovery of the Okaloosa
darter through natural resource
management planning and coordination
with the Service, we consider this
downlisting criterion to be satisfied.
Downlisting Criterion (2): Eglin AFB Has
(and Is Implementing) an Effective
Habitat Restoration Program To Control
Erosion From Roads, Clay Pits, and
Open Ranges
Eglin AFB has implemented a habitat
restoration program to control erosion
since 1995. The details and
accomplishments previously described
above in downlisting criterion (1) all
contribute to this criterion. Based on the
facts shared above, Eglin AFB has
effectively implemented this
downlisting criterion and continues to
make additional progress in reducing
remaining erosion problems on the base.
These actions have resulted in
identifiable increases in Okaloosa darter
numbers and occupied range. We will
continue to partner with Eglin AFB to
find similar opportunities like Mill
Creek to restore habitat and reduce
erosion.
In addition, Eglin’s Threatened and
Endangered Species Component Plan
(Eglin 2006, pp. 3–3 and 3–4) identifies
several objectives for the Okaloosa
darter, including the development of a
public information program for
threatened and endangered species on
Eglin AFB that have greater potential to
be impacted by public activities. The
public information program would
include an Air Armament Academy
(A3) class (Eglin’s civilian employee
training program), combined with an
Endangered Species Act class,
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5268
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
informational brochures, and portable
display boards. The goal of completion
of the public information program is
2010. The program will be provided to
both Eglin military users and the general
public. As of December 2007, Eglin has
completed two brochures and portable
display boards. There is also a
permanent display board in the lobby of
the Natural Resources Section, known
as Jackson Guard, which provides
information to the public about the
darter and efforts to protect and restore
its habitat. The A3 class is in the
process of being designed, and as
needed it will be scheduled and
presented twice a year beginning in
2008. Additionally, tours of Eglin, for
military personnel, non-government
delegates, and the general public
frequently involve presentations of
ongoing darter conservation activities.
Because Eglin AFB and others have
demonstrated a commitment to recovery
of the Okaloosa darter through natural
resource management planning and
coordination with the Service, we
consider this downlisting criterion to be
satisfied.
Downlisting Criterion (3): Okaloosa
Darter Population Is Stable or
Increasing and Comprised of Two Plus
Age-Classes in All Six Stream Systems
for 5 Consecutive Years
We had no estimate of population size
at the time of listing, although the
historic range of the Okaloosa darter is
fairly well documented. Relative
abundance estimates were determined
annually from 1987–88 to 1998 while
monitoring increases in sprayfield
loading at Eglin AFB. Bortone (1999,
p. 15) compared the relative abundance
(number per sampling hour) of darters at
16 to 18 stations over 10 sampling
seasons. The mean number of Okaloosa
darters per sample (in those samples
that yielded darters) was slightly lower
in the earlier sampling period (1987 to
1991), higher during the middle
sampling years (1992 to 1997), and
distinctly lower in 1998 and 1999.
Bortone (1999, p. 9) concluded that this
may not have indicated an overall trend
in the reduction in Okaloosa darters as
much as it may be indicative of changes
that specifically reduced preferable
habitat and increased sampling
effectiveness at certain sites, as several
sites were altered by beaver activity
while others became more rooted with
undergrowth. Generally, the data do not
indicate any overall major trends in
decline or increase during the 10-year
sampling period (Bortone 1999, p. 10).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and cooperators have surveyed between
12 and 60 sites for Okaloosa darters
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
annually since 1995 (Jordan and Jelks
2004, p. 2), primarily using visual
counts in 20-m (66-ft) segments.
Collectively, Jordan and Jelks’ data
show an almost tripling of darter
numbers in a 10-year timeframe, from
an average of about 20 darters per
20-m (66-ft) segment sampled in 1995 to
about 55 darters per segment in 2004. A
dip in the increasing trend occurred in
2001 and 2002, which corresponded
with years of regional drought
conditions. Even during these years,
however, darter numbers were almost
double those of 1995 and 1996.
The current rangewide population,
estimated by applying Jordan and Jelks
(2004, p. 3) study area-wide density
estimate of 3.1 darters per meter (m) (or
per 3.28 feet) to our estimates of
occupied stream length in each of the
six Okaloosa darter basins, gives a total
population estimate of 802,668 darters
with an estimated 625,279 mature
individuals (Service 2007, Table 2). In
order to expand the surveyed range of
the species, 69 sites were seine surveyed
in 50-m (164-ft) segments by the Service
in 2004–2005, with many of those being
outside the area surveyed by Jordan and
Jelks (2004). Observed segment densities
were transformed to local abundance
estimates based upon Jordan and Jelks’
(2004, App. 1) comparison of seine
versus visual counts and depletion
sampling. These surveys produced an
overall density estimate of 1.28 darters
per meter (or per 3.28 ft) and an
abundance estimate of 259,355 mature
individuals (Service 2007, Table 3).
Acknowledging the greater error likely
associated with seine-based
calculations, they provide a more
conservative population estimate.
Annual population monitoring is
conducted at 26 long-term monitoring
sites by the USGS per the sampling
methodology outlined in the Okaloosa
darter recovery plan (Service 1998).
This methodology has evolved into
counting darters using mask and snorkel
visual surveys, and includes collection
of numerous habitat conditions
including water depth and discharge,
substrate type, and canopy cover.
Annual monitoring has been conducted
on Eglin AFB by personnel from Loyola
University (New Orleans) and the
Service since 1995, and on private lands
since 1987. For complete information,
see the Service’s 2007 5-year status
review of the Okaloosa darter (Service
2007).
Downlisting criterion number (3) is
further defined in Appendix A of the
Okaloosa darter recovery plan to
include a specific standardized
sampling methodology. An operational
definition of a ‘‘stable’’ population is
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
also provided in Appendix A of the
recovery plan. The definition of a
‘‘stable’’ population applies to 26 longterm monitoring sites and has three
parts:
(1) Okaloosa darter numbers remain
above 1.75 standard deviations below
the cumulative long-term average at
each of the monitoring sites;
(2) The long-term trend in the average
counts at each monitoring site is
increasing, or neutral; and
(3) The range that the species inhabits
is not decreased by more than a 500meter (1,640.4-ft) stream reach within
any of the six stream systems.
Although the darter meets the
criterion for a stable population, the
validity of the criteria in the operational
definition of ‘‘stable’’ has come into
question since 1998 when the recovery
plan was prepared.
As identified in our 2007 5-year status
review of the Okaloosa darter (Service
2007, p. 6), monitoring has shown that
natural variation coupled with sampling
method (seining versus visual survey)
might result in a variation greater than
1.75 standard deviations while still
maintaining a stable or increasing trend.
Therefore, we have found that this
operational definition may no longer
reflect the best available science.
Current estimates of Okaloosa darter
numbers have instead been calculated
using two different methods of
standardizing monitoring and survey
data. Using visual survey methods in 28
20-m (66-ft) segments of stream,
encompassing the six principal basins, a
study areawide density estimate was
then applied to the known occupied
stream length for a total population
estimate of 802,668 darters (Service
2007, Table 2). A population estimate
based on seine samples, which
transformed density estimates to local
abundance estimates based upon Jordan
and Jelks’ (Jordan and Jelks 2004, App.
1; Jordan et al. 2008) comparison of
seine versus visual counts and depletion
sampling, calculated a 2004–2005
population estimate of 302,590 darters
(Service 2007, Table 3).
The long-term trend in the average
counts at each monitoring site indicates
that the four smallest darter basins
(Toms, Swift, Mill, and East Turkey), as
well as West Long Creek and East Long
Creek, are decreasing while the other
watersheds of Rocky Creek and Turkey
Creek are increasing. However, after
restoration activities on Mill Creek in
2007, darter numbers are now
increasing. Using the estimated length
of occupied habitat for these creeks,
darter numbers are increasing in 223.6
km (138.9 mi) or 86 percent of their
range and decreasing in 37.1 km (23.1
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
mi) or 14 percent of their range. All of
the declining trends were sampled by
seining, not visual surveys, and may
reflect variable sampling efficiency over
time. For example, one site has become
almost impossible to seine due to the
exposure of tree roots resulting from
stream bed degradation. Because seining
detects only about 32 percent as many
Okaloosa darters as visual surveys
(Jordan and Jelks 2004, App.1), the longterm trends in darter counts at sites
sampled by seine may be subject to error
during interpretation. Furthermore,
there appears to be a reduction in
numbers at many of the sites beginning
in 1998, prior to which counts appear to
be relatively consistent or generally
increasing, which may correspond to a
drought which began in1998 or could
reflect a difference in sampling ability
as a shift in USGS personnel occurred
at this time.
The range of the Okaloosa darter is
represented as the cumulative stream
length of occupancy in a basin.
However, the annual monitoring
identified in the recovery plan is not
specifically designed to measure the
length of a range reduction. Therefore,
we are unable to determine whether part
(3) of the operational definition of
‘‘stable’’ (A population will be
considered stable if * * * (3) the range
that the species inhabits is not
decreased by more than a 500-meter
(1,640.4-ft) stream reach within any of
the six stream systems) has been met.
Further, as noted previously, seining
has been shown (Jordan et al. 2008,
p. 313) to detect only about 32 percent
as many darters as visual surveys,
increasing the probability of incorrectly
concluding that darters are absent when
using this survey method.
Acknowledging these limitations, we
consider this downlisting criterion to be
satisfied. Okaloosa darters appear to
have expanded their range in two areas,
one in Mill Creek following habitat
restoration activities in 2007, and the
other a 1- to 2-mile expansion in the
southern/western tributary of Tom’s
Creek previously thought to be
uninhabited. Annual population
monitoring by USGS has detected
young-of-the-year and adult fish in all
six stream systems for the past 5 years
(Service 2007).
Downlisting Criterion (4): The Range of
the Okaloosa Darter Has Not Decreased
at All Historical Monitoring Sites
As noted above, trends in the range of
the Okaloosa darter are difficult to
interpret. However, darters appear to
have expanded their range in two
tributaries: Mill’s Creek and the
southern/western tributary of Tom’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
Creek. Although Okaloosa darters
appear to have decreased their range in
Swift’s Creek, this decrease seems to
have occurred prior to 1987. The
Okaloosa darter has been extirpated
from only about 9 percent of the 402 km
(249.8 mi) of streams that comprise its
total historical range. Given that the
small decrease likely occurred more
than 20 years ago, and since then the
species has expanded their range as
noted above, we consider this criterion
to be met.
Downlisting Criterion (5): No
Foreseeable Threats Exist That Would
Impact the Survival of the Species
At this stage of the recovery of
Okaloosa darter, threats remain under
Listing Factor A: The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Resource stewardship on Eglin AFB is
generally reducing the threat of habitat
destruction and range reduction from
sedimentation from unpaved roads and
areas adjacent to poorly designed or
maintained paved roads. As of 2006,
about 95 percent of the erosion control
projects identified in darter watersheds
had been completed (USAF 2006, pp.
3–5). Eglin AFB is continuing to fund
these projects to completely eliminate
the threat. We will continue to work
with Eglin AFB to remove remaining
erosion sources or point and non point
pollution sources in Okaloosa darter
habitat. In addition, new projects are
being considered on Eglin AFB and we
will work with the AFB to ensure
Okaloosa darter habitat is protected.
Although water quality issues
associated with the Niceville landfill
and sprayfield continue to threaten the
darter, they are being examined in a
3-year research project, which began in
2007. We recently worked with the city
of Niceville to improve its wastewater
collection system and install more
appropriate culverts at a number of road
crossings. In addition, as stated above,
a few of the Okaloosa darter’s streams
have been indicated as potentially
impaired due to biological indicators.
We will continue to work with Eglin to
determine the causes of impairment and
remove them. Proposed plans to assign
additional military forces to Eglin AFB
may alter the military mission and
could potentially impact Okaloosa
darter populations. On the smaller
creeks, where we noted a general longterm decline in average counts, we will
continue to investigate if habitat
attributes at these sites are the cause
while simultaneously trying to improve
survey protocols.
The Okaloosa darter was listed in
1973 as an endangered species. At the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5269
time of listing, the species faced
significantly greater threats than it does
today, as evidenced by the numerous
recovery actions to date that have
improved and restored its habitat
conditions. These recovery actions
include completing 95 percent of the
erosion control projects identified in
darter watersheds, thereby significantly
reducing the most intense threat to the
species (see the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section below for
further details). Now, more than 35
years after it was listed under the Act,
the Okaloosa darter continues to survive
and its overall status has improved.
Given that the threats to the species
have been significantly reduced, and
that for the purposes of this proposed
rule we have defined ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ for the Okaloosa darter as a 20year period (see the Foreseeable Future
section below), we have determined that
the Okaloosa darter has recovered to the
point where it now better meets the
definition of a threatened species—one
that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ In other words, although
some threats to the Okaloosa darter
continue to exist, these threats are not
likely to cause the species to become
extinct throughout all or a significant
portion of its range within the next 20
years. Data collected on the distribution
and abundance of the species indicate
that the species’ range has expanded
and overall population numbers are
increasing. The Okaloosa darter has met
all five downlisting criteria in its
recovery plan.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing,
reclassifying, or removing species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Species. ‘‘Species’’ is
defined by the Act as including any
species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate
population segment of fish or wildlife
that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). Once the ‘‘species’’ is
determined, we then evaluate whether
that species may be endangered or
threatened because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act. Those factors are: (1) Habitat
modification, destruction, or
curtailment; (2) overutilization of the
species for commercial, recreational,
scientific or educational purposes;
(3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(5) other natural or manmade factors
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
affecting it’s continued existence. We
must consider these same five factors in
reclassifying or delisting a species.
Listing, reclassifying, or delisting may
be warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, either singly or in
combination.
For species that are already listed as
threatened or endangered, this analysis
of threats is an evaluation of both the
threats currently facing the species and
the threats that are reasonably likely to
affect the species in the foreseeable
future following the delisting or
downlisting and the removal or
reduction of the Act’s protections.
Under section 3 of the Act, a species
is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range and is ‘‘threatened’’
if it is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The word ‘‘species’’ also
includes any subspecies or, for
vertebrates, distinct population
segments. The word ‘‘range’’ in the
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
(SPR) refers to the range in which the
species currently exists, and the word
‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that
portion of the range being considered to
the conservation of the species.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, in a
January 16, 2009, memorandum
addressed to the Acting Director of the
Service from the Office of the Solicitor,
Department of the Interior, concluded,
‘‘* * * as used in the [Act], Congress
intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to
describe the extent to which the
Secretary can reasonably rely on
predictions about the future in making
determinations about the future
conservation status of the species’’ (U.S.
Department of the Interior 2009).
‘‘Foreseeable future’’ is determined by
the Service on a case-by-case basis,
taking into consideration a variety of
species-specific factors such as lifespan,
genetics, breeding behavior,
demography, threat projection
timeframes, and environmental
variability.
In considering the foreseeable future
as it relates to the status of the Okaloosa
darter, we defined the ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ to be the extent to which, given
the amount and substance of available
data, events, or effects can and should
be anticipated, or the threats reasonably
extrapolated. We considered the
historical data to identify any relevant
existing threats acting on the species,
ongoing conservation efforts, data on
species abundance and persistence at
individual sites since the time of listing,
identifiable informational gaps and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
uncertainties regarding residual and
emerging threats to the species, as well
as population status and trends, its life
history, and then looked to see if
reliable predictions about the status of
the species in response to those factors
could be drawn. We considered the
historical data to identify any relevant
existing trends that might allow for
reliable prediction of the future (in the
form of extrapolating the trends). We
also considered whether we could
reliably predict any future events (not
yet acting on the species and therefore
not yet manifested in a trend) that might
affect the status of the species,
recognizing that our ability to make
reliable predictions into the future is
limited by the variable quantity and
quality of available data.
The average lifespan of an Okaloosa
darter is 2–4 years with a breeding
season that extends from March to
October, peaking in April. This lengthy
breeding season is an indicator of
fractional spawning (eggs develop and
mature throughout the spawning
season). The early results of recently
funded and ongoing genetic studies of
the darter indicate that the two large
lineages (Turkey and Rocky Creek) are
similar in size and have been relatively
stable since diverging from their
ancestral population (Austin 2007, pers.
comm.), suggesting demographic
stability over time. Therefore, a genetics
consideration does not appear relevant
to determination of the foreseeable
future.
Threat projection timeframes are
typically fairly short for Okaloosa darter
and range from the 5-year planning
cycle of the INRMP, to mission-specific
activities that can arise at any time, to
the Department of Transportation’s 20year planning projections. Lastly,
because the darter’s streams are mostly
small, spring-fed systems,
environmental variability is most
simply expressed in terms of the
variability in the hydrologic cycle.
The Okaloosa darter recovery plan
identifies one recovery criterion, a
stable or increasing population for 20
years, based on the 20-year hydrologic
cycle. Therefore, for the purposes of this
proposed rule, we define ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ for the Okaloosa darter as a 20year period, which encompasses both
the variable hydrologic cycle and the
long-term planning projections. Given
the available data, we believe this
represents a reasonable timeframe to
measure demographic changes that
could reflect potential threat factors to
the Okaloosa darter.
The following threats analysis
examines the five factors currently
affecting, or that are likely to affect the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
listed Okaloosa darter within the
foreseeable future. For the purposes of
this analysis, we will first evaluate
whether the currently listed species, the
Okaloosa darter, should be considered
threatened or endangered throughout its
range. Then we will consider whether
there are any portions of the species’
range where it is in danger of extinction
or likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Okaloosa darter was listed under
the Act in 1973, because of its extremely
limited range and potential problems
resulting from erosion, water
impoundment, and competition with
brown darters. The Okaloosa darter has
been extirpated from only about 9
percent of the 402 km (249.8 mi) of
streams that comprise its total historical
range. This historic loss of range is most
likely due to physical and chemical
habitat degradation from sediment and
pollutant loading and the urbanization
of the City of Niceville. Recent surveys
in a southern/western tributary of Tom’s
Creek, however, have established the
darter’s presence in a 1- to 2-mile
stretch of stream previously thought to
be uninhabited. All but 5 km (3.1 mi),
or 1.3 percent, of the extant range is also
currently within Eglin AFB.
Sediment loading is perhaps the most
intense and uniform factor continuing to
threaten the Okaloosa darter. A recent
report (Rainer et al. 2005, pp. 3–13)
identified the following primary sources
of sediment to aquatic ecosystems on
Eglin AFB: accelerated streamside
erosion, borrow pits, developed areas,
land test areas, silviculture, and roads.
Of these, the stream crossings of
unpaved roads and subsequent bank
erosion probably have the greatest
impact because of their distribution on
Eglin AFB, relative permanence as base
infrastructure, and long-term soil
disturbance characteristics. The largest
remaining source of sediment input to
darter streams is the unpaved road
network. As of 2005, 87 percent (4,348
km or 2,701.7 mi) of Eglin’s road
network was unpaved. However, as of
2006, Eglin AFB had completed about
95 percent of the erosion control
projects identified in darter watersheds,
substantially reducing runoff and
sedimentation (USAF 2006, pp. 3–5).
From 1995 to 2004, 317 borrow pits and
non-point erosion sites (485 ac) were
rehabilitated and maintained. Although
most of the erosion control projects have
already been completed, Eglin has a
continuing objective of identifying and
rehabilitating 150 soil erosion sites that
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
have the potential to impact threatened
and endangered species like the listed
Okaloosa darter. These remaining soil
erosion sites pose a continuing threat to
the darter and its habitat. For example,
five road crossings in the Turkey Creek
drainage have repeatedly exceeded state
water quality standards for turbidity.
Of the 153 road crossings that
previously existed in Okaloosa darter
drainages, 57 have been eliminated: 28
in Boggy Bayou streams and 29 in Rocky
Bayou streams. Eglin AFB estimates that
these and other restoration efforts have
reduced soil loss from roughly 69,000
tons/year in darter watersheds in 1994
to approximately 3,000 tons/year in
2004 (Pizzalotto 2005, pers. comm.).
Borrow pits were a major source of
sediment loading to darter streams cited
in the 1998 darter recovery plan. At that
time, 29 of 39 borrow pits located
within or immediately adjacent to
Okaloosa darter drainages had been
restored so that they no longer posed
sedimentation threats. As of 2004, all of
the remaining borrow pits within
Okaloosa darter drainages have been
restored and no longer pose
sedimentation threats (Rainer et al.
2005, p. 3–18).
While sedimentation and erosion
problems still exist on Eglin, they have
been significantly reduced through
improvements such as bottomless
culverts, bridges over streams, and bank
restoration and revegetation. There are
other areas where sedimentation
remains a higher magnitude threat to the
continued existence of the Okaloosa
darter. Primarily in the downstreammost portion of the darter’s range, urban
development and construction activity
pose a threat to the darter due to poor
stormwater runoff control and pollution
prevention measures that degrade
habitat and may pose potential barriers
to movement between basins. This
threat is present primarily in the 5 km
(3.1 mi) of habitat located outside of
Eglin AFB. With improvement and
reduction of sediment erosion on Eglin
(98.7 percent of the darter’s range), we
believe that, with lessons learned, we
can continue to work with off-base
partners in recovery efforts that will
enable delisting of this fish.
Additionally, one road development
project has surfaced as a new potential
threat that may negatively impact the
Okaloosa darter. The Northwest Florida
Transportation Corridor Authority has
proposed a new, high-speed, toll bypass
road across Eglin AFB. However, the
proposed bypass road would not
prevent implementation of management
actions for the Okaloosa darter in Eglin’s
INRMP, which will continue to provide
a benefit to the darter. Eglin AFB has
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
granted the Transportation Corridor
Authority conceptual agreement for the
proposed bypass road. Although this
project may cross darter drainages, the
agreement includes 19 stipulations that
will minimize impacts to darter
drainages. For example, road and bridge
design must also address maintenance
of riparian zones and stream habitat. In
addition, placement of interchanges
should be outside sensitive natural
areas. Therefore, we do not consider the
proposed bypass road to be a serious
threat to Okaloosa darters. Currently,
this project has yet to complete National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements or
consultation requirements under the
Act, the latter of which will require
specific measures to avoid and
minimize take of the darter. We are
seeking additional information on
proposed activities or ongoing activities
like this one (see Public Comments
section) during the comment period for
this proposed rule.
Eglin AFB is a military training
facility and as such is divided into 37
land test areas where weapons testing
and training operations are conducted,
12 of which are wholly or partially
within darter drainages (SAIC 2001,
pp. 2 and 7). Eglin AFB maintains large
portions of the test areas in an early
stage of plant succession with few
mature trees and varying degrees of soil
disturbance as a result of maintenance
or military missions. Since 1998, only
one section 7 consultation with Eglin
under the Act (related to test area
activities) has resulted in the issuance of
an incidental take statement. However,
there is a proposal to increase the
military personnel and use at Eglin
through the 2005 Defense Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The
BRAC action involves establishing the
Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Training
Center and relocating the Army 7th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) to
Eglin AFB, increasing the number of
personnel present on base, the number
of test ranges, and the amount of test
area activities. The Service has provided
preliminary comments on the military’s
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement under
NEPA and completed a formal
consultation for other species but not
the Okaloosa darter. We do not
anticipate any increase in threats to the
Okaloosa darter from this action as the
new ranges have been moved outside of
Okaloosa darter habitat and Eglin has
agreed to provide a 300-ft. buffer along
all darter streams when conducting any
troop maneuvers.
While poorly designed silvicultural
programs can result in accelerated soil
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5271
erosion and stream sedimentation, Eglin
has designed its program within darter
habitat to avoid and minimize impacts
to the aquatic ecosystems such that the
program is not likely to adversely affect
the Okaloosa darter.
Pollution other than sedimentation
poses a potential threat to darters in six
stream segments. While no streams in
the darter’s range are designated by DEP
as impaired, 6 of the 13 segments
sampled using three biological
indicators were considered potentially
impaired and are on the ‘‘3c planning
list,’’ which means that ‘‘enough data
and information are present to
determine that one or more designated
uses may not be attained according to
the Planning List methodology.’’ One
stream site has been characterized as
‘‘severely limited by pollutants from the
landfill.’’ Using comparable aquatic
insect sampling methods, the Service
(Thom and Herod 2005, Table 4–1)
found 12 out of the 42 sites sampled
within the darter’s range to be impaired.
An impaired water body is one where
the biological integrity of the system as
determined through indicators has been
compromised because of pollutants,
indicating that Okaloosa darter habitat
is degraded.
Water withdrawals for human
consumption in and around the range of
the Okaloosa darter are presently served
by wells that tap the Floridan Aquifer,
which is declining substantially in the
most populated areas near the coast.
However, at this time, there is no
evidence that pumping from the aquifer
has reduced flows in darter streams. The
darter drainages are spring-fed from the
shallow sand and gravel aquifer that is
not used for human consumption.
Additionally, the low permeability of
the Pensacola Clay confining bed
probably severely limits hydraulic
connectivity between the two aquifers
(Fisher et al. 1994, p. 86). Therefore, we
do not anticipate that local population
growth would adversely affect water
flows in the darter’s drainages.
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is
unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30).
Numerous long-term changes have been
observed including changes in arctic
temperatures and ice, widespread
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean
salinity, wind patterns and aspects of
extreme weather including droughts,
heavy precipitation, heat waves and the
intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC
2007b, p. 7). While continued change is
certain, the magnitude and rate of
change is unknown in many cases.
The currently occupied range of the
darter is restricted to approximately
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5272
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
364.6 and 402 km (227.9 and 251.3 mi.)
of streams, respectively, in Walton and
Okaloosa Counties, Florida. While we
acknowledge the general scientific
consensus that global scale increases in
temperatures have occurred, we do not
have any data to indicate that climate
change poses a threat to the Okaloosa
darter and do not believe that climate
change will adversely affect this species
because the darter drainages are springfed. The information currently available
on the effects of climate change and the
available climate change models do not
make sufficiently accurate estimates of
location and magnitude of effects at a
scale small enough to apply to the range
of the Okaloosa darter. There is no
evidence that climate changes observed
to date have had any adverse impact on
the Okaloosa darter or its habitat.
Summary of Factor A: About 51,397
hectares (127,000 acres), or 457 square
kilometers (176 square miles), of the
darter’s drainage basins (90 percent) are
managed by Eglin AFB, while 485.6
hectares or 12,000 acres (10 percent) of
the drainage basins are situated within
the Niceville-Valparaiso urban complex.
Urban runoff continues to degrade
darter habitat off Eglin through
pollution and sedimentation.
Additionally, there is a continued threat
of further development in the darter’s
drainages outside of the AFB.
The military mission or mandate of
Eglin AFB, which holds 98.7 percent of
the darter’s range and 90 percent of the
drainage basins for the darter, will lead
to foreseeable actions that could impact
the darter’s range. Impacts resulting
from a road development project within
the darter’s range have been minimized,
and it does not present a significant
threat to the species. On the other hand,
the growing coastline human population
in Florida that is pressing into the
boundaries of Eglin AFB will have
foreseeable needs that could cross
Eglin’s boundaries and impact the
darter’s range.
Stream sedimentation and erosion
control problems still exist on Eglin
AFB and we will continue to
cooperatively work with our partner to
resolve these. Habitat restoration efforts
done on the base to date have reduced
95 percent of the sedimentation into
streams occupied by the Okaloosa
darter, nearly eliminating the largest
threat to the species. Okaloosa darter
populations are stable or increasing in
the majority of the species’ range. The
current rangewide population is
estimated at 802,668 darters with an
estimated 625,279 mature individuals
(Service 2007, Table 2). We do not have
any data to indicate that climate change
poses a threat to the Okaloosa darter.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
Therefore, we believe the rangewide
threat of habitat destruction,
modification, or fragmentation over this
large area from sources like
sedimentation and pollution has been
reduced to a point where the Okaloosa
darter no longer meets the definition of
an endangered species. We find that the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range is not likely to place the
Okaloosa darter in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. However, although the threats
under this factor have been reduced,
they have not been entirely eliminated.
Accordingly we find that the Okaloosa
darter meets the definition of a
threatened species because it is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is not, nor has it ever been, a
significant threat to the Okaloosa darter
anywhere within the species’ range.
Any utilization for recreational
purposes is limited to the occasional
mistaken use as a bait fish. Therefore,
we find that this factor is not likely to
cause the Okaloosa darter to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We do
not have any data to suggest that this
threat will increase in any portion of the
darter’s range now or within the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Neither disease nor predation is
considered a threat to the Okaloosa
darter. The six basins of the darter’s
range are relatively free of introduced
aquatic predators, and the native
predators, such as the largemouth bass,
are relatively low in numbers due to the
generally low productivity of the
groundwater-fed streams. We have no
indications that terrestrial predation is a
problem. It is possible that diseases or
parasites were indirectly associated
with the extirpation of the darter from
various stream segments as a result of
physical or chemical habitat
degradation. However, apart from this
potential association, we do not
otherwise suspect that disease or
predation unduly limits the distribution
or abundance of the darter. Therefore,
we find that this factor is not likely to
cause the Okaloosa darter to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We do
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not have any data to suggest that this
threat will increase in any portion of the
darter’s range now or within the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The State of Florida has listed the
Okaloosa darter as an endangered
species under its protected species
statute since 1976. Recently, the FWC
incorporated the IUCN Red List Criteria
(https://www.iucnredlist.org) in its
procedures for classifying species
(Florida Administrative Code 68A–
27.0012), but the FWC has not yet
evaluated the Okaloosa darter using the
new procedures (Gruver 2008, pers.
comm.). Our application of the Red List
Criteria classifies the darter as ‘‘near
threatened’’ (Service 2007, p. 43).
In addition, land management on
DOD lands is governed by the Sikes Act
(16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.) and the Sikes
Improvement Act, which provide for the
conservation and rehabilitation of
natural resources and require DOD to
periodically prepare an INRMP in
consultation with the Service and the
applicable state wildlife agency.
Because the Okaloosa darter’s extant
range occurs almost exclusively on
Eglin AFB, the species is afforded
considerable protections from largescale habitat disturbance. Its habitat is
further conserved and rehabilitated,
through fish and wildlife and land
management actions, consistent with
the use of the military installation, as
required by the Sikes Act, as amended
by the Sikes Improvement Act.
Department of Defense Instruction
(DODI) 4715.3, Environmental
Conservation Program, is the
overarching instruction for Department
of Defense (DOD) natural and cultural
resource management, and is the
primary agent for implementing policy
(including the Sikes Act), assigning
responsibility, and prescribing
procedures for the integrated
management of natural and cultural
resources on DOD properties. In
compliance with these programs, Eglin
AFB has taken a proactive role in the
recovery of the Okaloosa darter by
managing its lands to provide for the
recovery of the darter and assuring that
its recovery is integrated with the
military training purposes of the base.
Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32–
70, Environmental Quality, establishes
policy to: Responsibly manage natural
and cultural resources on Air Force
properties, clean up past environmental
damage, meet current environmental
standards, plan future activities to
minimize impacts, and eliminate
pollution from Air Force activities
whenever possible. Under this
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Directive, an Air Force Environmental
Quality Program was developed. This
program includes the following
activities: cleanup, compliance,
conservation, and pollution prevention.
Additionally, this directive states that
the Air Force will pursue adequate
funding to meet environmental legal
obligations. Compliance with this
directive has resulted in funding and
implementation of considerable erosion
control measures and fish barrier
removal, which has significantly
reduced runoff and sedimentation in
Okaloosa darter streams and expanded
the range of the species.
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32–7064,
Integrated Natural Resources
Management, implements AFPD 32–70
and DODI 4715.3. This instruction
provides details on how to manage
natural resources on Air Force
installations to comply with applicable
Federal, state, and local laws and
regulations. The current INRMP and
Threatened and Endangered Species
Component Plan for Eglin AFB identify
management practices to benefit the
Okaloosa darter. The purpose of the
INRMP for Eglin AFB is to provide
interdisciplinary strategic guidance for
the management of the base’s natural
resources, while the primary objective
of the Air Force Natural Resources
Program is to ensure continued access to
land and air space required to
accomplish the Air Force mission while
maintaining these resources in a healthy
condition. The INRMP for Eglin AFB
facilitates compliance with Federal,
state, and local environmental
requirements. These requirements deal
with analysis of potential environmental
impacts, water and air quality,
wetlands, endangered species, marine
mammals, migratory birds, other
wildlife, forest and fire management,
and public access and recreation. Eglin
AFB has a recently approved INRMP
(2007) and Threatened and Endangered
Species Component Plan (2006) that
identifies conservation objectives for the
Okaloosa darter as described under item
(2) in the Recovery section above.
Summary of Factor D: We estimate
that 98.7 percent of the darter’s extant
range is within the boundaries of Eglin
AFB. The 1.3 percent of the range that
is not on Eglin is in all instances
downstream of the base boundary. For
this reason, almost all human activities
that may affect the existing darter
population are Federal actions,
including actions implemented, funded,
or approved by the DOD. The INRMP
prepared for Eglin AFB under the Sikes
Act and Sikes Improvement Act requires
habitat improvements that will continue
to benefit the darter. Federal actions
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
must also comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean
Water Act, and applicable state law.
These regulatory mechanisms will
remain in place if the Okaloosa darter is
downlisted to threatened. Therefore, the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
substantial, and they will be adequate to
protect the darter and its habitat in the
majority of its range now and within the
foreseeable future. We do not have any
data to suggest that this threat will
increase in any portion of the darter’s
range now or within the future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Okaloosa darters were not adversely
affected by the active hurricane and
storm seasons of 2004 and 2005, which
brought numerous severe storm events
to the southern boundaries of Eglin
AFB. Nor were the darters affected by
the ongoing 2007–2008 drought
affecting much of Florida. This is likely
due to the spring-fed nature of the
darter’s drainages.
Two natural factors are identified in
the recovery plan as possibly affecting
the Okaloosa darter: the brown darter as
an introduced competitor species, and
the beaver as an agent adversely
modifying darter habitat. In 1964, a
potential competitor, the brown darter
(Etheostoma edwini), was found in the
lower reaches of Swift Creek. The brown
darter is a widespread species in
drainages that surround the streams
containing the Okaloosa darter, but had
not previously been documented in any
Okaloosa darter drainages. Early
indications were that the brown darter
may have been introduced into darter
drainages from releases from bait
buckets by fishermen, dispersed from
Eagle Creek along the shoreline of
Choctawhatchee Bay. Otherwise, the
brown darter could have simply been
overlooked in early collections. Recent
genetics analyses of the brown darter
shows high genetic structure, and little
support for introductions from eastern
Florida (Austin 2007, pers. comm.),
supporting the theory that they were
overlooked in early collections.
Although annual monitoring (1995–
2004) of Okaloosa and brown darter
populations shows a weak negative
correlation between the abundance of
the two species, the relative abundance
of Okaloosa darters at sites where both
species occur has generally increased or
remained constant in this timeframe,
and the range of the brown darter has
not expanded (Jordan and Jelks 2004,
p. 3). Earlier comparisons of
microhabitat use found little evidence of
competitive displacement (Burkhead et
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5273
al. 1994, p. 60). Therefore, at this time,
we do not believe the brown darter is an
introduced species or that it poses a
significant threat to the recovery of the
Okaloosa darter because it has not been
shown to successfully compete with the
Okaloosa darter.
Okaloosa darters do not appear to
tolerate impounded conditions and are
generally absent in the relatively still
water upstream of manmade dams,
beaver dams, culverts, and other
instream obstructions that act like dams.
Jordan and Jelks (2004, p. 29) observed
the effects of a beaver dam and a culvert
at two locations on Rogue Creek that
supported Okaloosa darters before these
structures were placed in the stream.
Both structures had similar effects on
darters and important darter habitat
features, including increased water
temperature, accumulation of flocculent
substrate, loss of typical microhabitat
features, and virtual elimination of
darters in the impounded areas.
However, Jordan and Jelks (2004, p. 29)
also observed that darters returned to
these locations within a year following
removal of the beaver dam and the
culvert, the former by Eglin AFB
resource managers and the latter by a
hurricane.
Because beavers often alter areas
contrary to human intentions for those
areas, and also because beaver ponds
displace Okaloosa darter habitat,
resource managers, with the assistance
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—
Wildlife Services, control beaver
numbers in some areas on Eglin AFB
(USAF 2007, pp. 1–6). Although a
nuisance in the urban environment,
beavers are a natural feature of the
landscape in the range of the Okaloosa
darter. While the waters impounded
behind a beaver dam do not support
Okaloosa darters, darter densities in
‘‘beaver meadows’’ were among the
highest observed in monitoring surveys.
Beaver meadows occur in the vicinity of
beaver ponds where the dam and pond
induces the stream to assume a braided
(multi-channel) form, sometimes in the
pond itself following dam blowout or
removal. Floodplain trees are killed by
the year-round high water level
maintained near the pond and by the
beavers themselves, and herbaceous
vegetation thrives in the resulting open
canopy, which apparently creates
favorable habitat conditions for the
darter as aquatic macrophytes thrive
under the open canopy and in higher
nutrient substrates. We suspect that a
beaver meadow supports as many or
more darters than were displaced from
the beaver pond itself.
Beaver dams are not permanent
structures and may be broken by the
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5274
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
high flows associated with hurricanes
and other major storm events. The
organic matter that accumulates in a
beaver pond is suddenly released when
the dam blows out, which provides a
pulse of nutrients in the otherwise
nutrient-poor darter streams. The pond
is gone immediately, of course, and over
time the braided channel through the
beaver meadow returns to a single
channel form. This channel is
eventually shaded by riparian trees and
shrubs, and the concentrated patch of
darter habitat that the meadow provided
is also gone. Given the balance of the
effects beavers have on their habitats,
we do not know at this time whether
their numbers pose a threat to Okaloosa
darters. However, even if they do pose
localized threats, we do not believe
these to be significant to the overall
Okaloosa darter population.
Summary of Factor E: While brown
darters and beavers may pose localized
threats to the Okaloosa darter, there is
no evidence indicating that these threats
are significantly affecting the species on
a rangewide or population level because
the Okaloosa darter persists in all six
basins, with a minimum of 1,200 mature
individuals (Service 2007, Table 2).
Substantial increasing trends are
evident in the two largest basins, Turkey
Creek and Rocky Creek, with a
minimum of 244,795 and 217,272
mature individuals respectively (Service
2007, Table 2).
At only one of the 26 monitoring sites
does the multiyear disappearance of the
Okaloosa darter strongly suggest a local
extirpation and possible loss of range,
but this potential loss is small. This site
is a tributary of a tributary of Rocky
Creek, and Okaloosa darters have been
collected in recent years from sites both
upstream and downstream in the West
Long Creek watershed. As noted earlier,
Okaloosa darters expanded their ranges
in two areas: One in Mill Creek
following habitat restoration and one in
a tributary of Tom’s Creek previously
thought to be uninhabited. Therefore,
we find that this factor is not likely to
cause the Okaloosa darter to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We do
not have any data to suggest that this
threat will increase in any portion of the
darter’s range now or within the future.
Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis
In developing this proposed rule, we
have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial data available
regarding the threats facing this species,
as well as the ongoing conservation
efforts. As identified above, only one of
the five listing factors currently poses a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
known threat to the Okaloosa darter,
namely, Factor A.—The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. Eglin
AFB manages the vast majority of the
Okaloosa darter’s range, 98.7 percent.
We have seen substantial progress on
Eglin AFB addressing threats to the
darter’s habitat under the base’s INRMP
and general ongoing habitat restoration.
Resource stewardship on Eglin AFB is
generally reducing the threat of habitat
destruction and range reduction (for
example, restoring erosive, near-stream
borrow pits). Eglin AFB is addressing
the threat of sedimentation from
unpaved roads and from areas adjacent
to poorly designed and maintained
paved roads. Similarly, restoration of
Mill Creek on the Eglin Golf Course,
which had been substantially altered by
culverts and manmade impoundments,
has recently (2007) been completed. As
the smallest of the six darter
watersheds, the darter population in
Mill Creek is probably most vulnerable
to extirpation. We anticipate that
restoration at Mill Creek will secure a
viable population in this system. Eglin
has worked diligently to generally
improve habitat quality within its
boundaries. Outside of Eglin’s borders,
we have recently been working with the
City of Niceville to improve their
wastewater collection system and install
more appropriate culverts at a number
of road crossings. However, additional
improvements are necessary before this
threat of sedimentation and pollution is
completely removed.
Brown darters and habitat loss from
beaver activity were identified as other
natural and manmade factors affecting
the continued existence of darters. After
several years of monitoring and recent
genetics work, it does not appear that
the brown darter is either expanding its
range or displacing Okaloosa darters in
most sympatric areas. The overall effect
of beaver activity on the darter is poorly
understood. However, even if brown
darters and habitat loss from beaver
activity do pose localized threats, we do
not believe these to be significant to the
overall Okaloosa darter population.
Recovery plans are intended to guide
and measure recovery. Recovery criteria
for downlisting and delisting are
developed in the recovery planning
process to provide measureable goals on
the path to recovery; however, precise
attainment of all recovery criteria is not
a prerequisite for downlisting or
delisting. Rather, the decision to change
the status of a listed species under the
Act is based on the analysis of the 5
listing factors identified in section 4 of
the Act. The Act provides for
downlisting from endangered to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
threatened when the best available data
indicate that a species, subspecies, or
distinct population segment is no longer
in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
The 1998 Recovery Plan for the
Okaloosa darter identifies five
downlisting criteria. We believe that the
intent of all five of the downlisting
criteria have been fulfilled; however, the
delisting criteria have not been met at
this time (see the Recovery section
above). While significantly reduced,
sedimentation and pollution remain a
threat in portions of the darter’s range,
as well as development.
Based on the analysis above and given
the substantial reduction in threats to its
habitat, we believe that the Okaloosa
darter does not currently meet the
definition of endangered in that it is not
‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.’’
Instead, we believe it meets the
definition of threatened in that it is
‘‘likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Actions
still needed for the Okaloosa darter to
continue to recover (for example,
actions to remove threats to the point
that the species no longer meets the
definition of threatened) include:
(1) Cooperative agreements to protect
and restore habitat, water quality, and
water quantity for the Okaloosa darter
outside of Eglin AFB to protect the
species in the foreseeable future; and
(2) Improved and maintained water
quality and riparian habitat on Eglin
AFB, minimizing erosion at clay pits,
road crossings, and steep slopes to the
extent that resembles historic,
predisturbance conditions.
Significant Portion of the Range
Analysis
Having determined that the Okaloosa
darter is no longer endangered
throughout its range as a consequence of
the threats evaluated under the five
threat factors in the Act, we must next
consider whether there are any
significant portions of its range where
the species is currently endangered. On
March 16, 2007, a formal opinion was
issued by the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior, ‘‘The
Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction
Throughout All or a Significant Portion
of Its Range’ ’’ (U.S. DOI 2007). We have
summarized our interpretation of that
opinion and the underlying statutory
language below. A portion of a species’
range is significant if it is part of the
current range of the species and is
important to the conservation of the
species because it contributes
meaningfully to the representation,
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
resiliency, or redundancy of the species.
The contribution must be at a level such
that its loss would result in a decrease
in the ability to conserve the species.
The first step in determining whether
a species is endangered in a significant
portion of its range is to identify any
portions of the range that warrant
further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and endangered. To identify only those
portions that warrant further
consideration, we determine whether
there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
significant, and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there. In
practice, a key part of this analysis is
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the
range that are not significant to the
conservation of the species, such
portions will not warrant further
consideration.
If we identify any portions that
warrant further consideration, we then
determine whether in fact the species is
endangered in any significant portion of
its range. Depending on the biology of
the species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient for the
Service to address the significance
question first, and in others the status
question first. Thus, if the Service
determines that a portion of the range is
not significant, the Service need not
determine whether the species is
endangered there. Conversely, if the
Service determines that the species is
not endangered in a portion of its range,
the Service need not determine if that
portion is significant. If the Service
determines that both a portion of the
range of a species is significant and the
species is endangered there, the Service
will specify that portion of the range
where the species is in danger of
extinction pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of
the Act.
The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ ‘‘redundancy,’’
and ‘‘representation’’ are intended to be
indicators of the conservation value of
portions of the range. Resiliency of a
species allows the species to recover
from periodic or occasional disturbance.
A species will likely be more resilient
if large populations exist in high-quality
habitat that is distributed throughout
the range of the species in such a way
as to capture the environmental
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
variability within the range of the
species. It is likely that the larger size
of a population will help contribute to
the viability of the species. Thus, a
portion of the range of a species may
make a meaningful contribution to the
resiliency of the species if the area is
relatively large and contains particularly
high-quality habitat or if its location or
characteristics make it less susceptible
to certain threats than other portions of
the range. When evaluating whether or
how a portion of the range contributes
to resiliency of the species, it may help
to evaluate the historical value of the
portion and how frequently the portion
is used by the species. In addition, the
portion may contribute to resiliency for
other reasons—for instance, it may
contain an important concentration of
certain types of habitat that are
necessary for the species to carry out its
life-history functions, such as breeding,
feeding, migration, dispersal, or
wintering.
Redundancy of populations may be
needed to provide a margin of safety for
the species to withstand catastrophic
events. This does not mean that any
portion that provides redundancy is a
significant portion of the range of a
species. The idea is to conserve enough
areas of the range such that random
perturbations in the system act on only
a few populations. Therefore, each area
must be examined based on whether
that area provides an increment of
redundancy that is important to the
conservation of the species.
Adequate representation insures that
the species’ adaptive capabilities are
conserved. Specifically, the portion
should be evaluated to see how it
contributes to the genetic diversity of
the species. The loss of genetically
based diversity may substantially
reduce the ability of the species to
respond and adapt to future
environmental changes. A peripheral
population may contribute meaningfully
to representation if there is evidence
that it provides genetic diversity due to
its location on the margin of the species’
habitat requirements.
For the Okaloosa darter, we applied
the process described above to
determine whether any portions of the
range warranted further consideration to
qualify for endangered status. We
concluded through the five-factor
analysis, in particular Factor A, that the
existing or potential threats are
consistent throughout the darter’s range,
and there is no portion of the range
where one or more threats are
geographically concentrated. We believe
that there are no small geographic areas
where localized threats still exist.
Because the low level of threats to the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5275
species is essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion
warrants further consideration as a
significant portion of the range. A
summary of our reasoning follows.
The quality of Okaloosa darter habitat
is quite variable throughout its range.
However, the basic biological
components necessary for the darter to
complete its life-history functions are
present throughout the range in each of
the six stream systems. There is no
particular location or area that provides
a unique or biologically significant
function. The currently occupied range
of the darter is restricted to
approximately 364.6 and 402 km (227.9
and 251.3 mi.) of streams, respectively,
in Walton and Okaloosa Counties,
Florida. The threats identified above are
fairly uniform throughout this range.
The vast majority of the range of the
darter, 98.7 percent, is managed by
Eglin AFB according to the 2007 INRMP
and Threatened and Endangered
Species Component Plan. The
Component Plan applies equally
throughout the darter’s range on the
base. The greatest threat to the species,
sediment loading mainly from stream
crossings of unpaved roads, is
ubiquitous throughout the darter’s range
on the base. While there are certain
specific locations within the darter’s
range where pollution impacts are
greater than in other locations, for
example, those locations considered to
be ‘‘potentially impaired’’ by DEP, in no
circumstance is an entire stream system
so affected.
An exception to the above includes
the approximately 5 km (3.1 mi.) of the
range that does not occur on Eglin AFB.
In this small percentage of the range,
several of the threats are more
pronounced, including those from urban
development and construction activity.
However, as this more pronounced
threat is only present on 1.3 percent of
the range of the Okaloosa darter, it is not
‘‘significant’’ to the species. Therefore,
we have determined that there are no
portions of the range that qualify as a
significant portion of the range in which
the darter is in danger of extinction.
In summary, the threats to Okaloosa
darter habitat have been significantly
reduced as a result of Eglin
implementing habitat improvement
measures on the AFB. Okaloosa darter
populations remain stable throughout
most of their range, and have even
expanded their range in some areas.
Based on the darter’s improved status
throughout its range and the reduction
in threats, we have determined that
none of the threats result in the darter
being in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5276
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
However, several threats to the darter
and its habitat remain. We have
determined that, based on the status of
the species and these remaining threats,
the Okaloosa darter meets the definition
of threatened in that it is likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we are proposing to reclassify
the darter’s status from endangered to
threatened under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing increases
public awareness of threats to the
Okaloosa darter, and promotes
conservation actions by Federal, state,
and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act
provides for possible land acquisition
and cooperation with the state, and
provides for recovery planning and
implementation. The protection
required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against taking and harm are
discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to the
Okaloosa darter. Regulations
implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a Federal
action may affect the Okaloosa darter or
its habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must consult with the Service to
ensure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Okaloosa darter. Federal
agency actions that may require
consultation include: Eglin AFB mission
activities, new construction, culvert
replacements, stream restoration,
sediment control projects, vegetation
control, and right-of-way permitting for
pipelines and cables; U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers involvement in projects
such as dredge and fill permits for
roads, bridges, and culverts; and Federal
Highway Administration road projects.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered and threatened
wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR 17.31, in part,
make it illegal for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to
take (includes harm, harass, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
such conduct), import or export, ship in
interstate commerce in the course of
commercial activity, or sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. It is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken in violation of the Act. Certain
exceptions apply to Service agents and
agents of state conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened and endangered
species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are
codified at 50 CFR part 13 and at 50
CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife
species. Such permits are available for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in the course of
otherwise lawful activities. For
threatened species, permits are also
available for zoological exhibition,
educational purposes, or special
purposes consistent with the purposes
of the Act.
Because the Okaloosa darter’s extant
range occurs almost exclusively on
Eglin AFB, the species is afforded
considerable protections from largescale habitat disturbance. Those
protections have already been discussed
under Factor D. above, and are
incorporated here by reference.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act and applicable
regulations should be directed to Don
Imm, Deputy Field Supervisor, Panama
City Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for
copies of the regulations regarding listed
species and inquiries about prohibitions
and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services Division, 1875
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta,
GA 30345, telephone (404) 679–7217,
facsimile (404) 679–7081.
Proposed Special Rule
The information presented just above
generally applies to threatened species
of fish and wildlife. However, the
Service has the discretion under section
4(d) of the Act to issue special
regulations for a threatened species that
are necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species. Threatened
species implementing regulations at 50
CFR 17.31 incorporate the prohibitions
of section 9 of the Act for endangered
species, except when a ‘‘special rule’’ is
promulgated under section 4(d) of the
Act for a particular threatened species.
A special rule for a particular threatened
species defines the specific take
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for that species rather than
incorporating all of the prohibitions of
section 9 of the Act. The prohibitions
under section 9 of the Act currently
make it illegal to import, export, take,
possess, deliver, receive, carry,
transport, ship in interstate commerce,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or
foreign commerce species listed under
the Act. Take, as defined in section 3 of
the Act, means to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Threatened species that
have special rules under section 4(d) of
the Act are listed in our regulations at
50 CFR 17.40 through 17.48.
Because we originally listed the
Okaloosa darter as endangered, we did
not promulgate a special rule. However,
now that we are proposing to reclassify
the darter to threatened status, we
believe that a special rule is appropriate
to provide for the continued
conservation of the species. Therefore, a
proposed special rule is included as part
of this proposed reclassification from
endangered to threatened status.
Although the range of the species is
small, it is almost entirely (98.7 percent)
on Eglin AFB Federal lands. Darter
drainages comprise 24 percent of the
Eglin AFB, subjecting almost all actions
undertaken on 24 percent of the base to
the interagency cooperation
requirements of section 7 of the Act,
including habitat management and
restoration both specifically targeted at
darter conservation and as required by
the Sikes Act and SAIA through the
Eglin INRMP. This proposed special
rule:
(1) Recognizes the positive recovery
efforts and accomplishments of Eglin
AFB and the DOD in recovering the
Okaloosa darter to the extent that the
darter no longer meets the definition of
endangered;
(2) Provides increased regulatory and
mission flexibility for Eglin AFB;
(3) Will help streamline or eliminate
review and permitting requirements for
habitat management and restoration
activities, thus providing a net benefit to
the Okaloosa darter; and
(4) Will better enable the Service and
Eglin AFB to target limited resources to
other, more vulnerable areas or species.
Therefore, under section 4(d) of the
Act, we propose, through this special
rule, that it is necessary and advisable
to provide for the conservation of the
Okaloosa darter by allowing the take in
accordance with applicable Federal,
state, and local laws, during the
following activities on Eglin AFB that
are consistent with a Service-approved
INRMP and the Threatened and
Endangered Species Component Plan:
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) Prescribed fire for land
management to promote a healthy
ecosystem;
(2) Instream habitat restoration;
(3) Unpaved range road stabilization;
(4) Removal or replacement of
culverts for the purpose of road
decommissioning, improving fish
passage, or enhancing stream habitat;
and
(5) Scientific research and monitoring
activities consistent with an approved
Okaloosa darter recovery plan, or
otherwise approved by the Service, both
on and off of Eglin AFB.
All other activities resulting in take of
Okaloosa darter would remain
prohibited.
This proposed special rule would
provide for the continued conservation
of Okaloosa darter by reducing the
regulatory burden under the Act, and
thereby encouraging further recovery
efforts on DOD lands. Minor adverse
impacts to the Okaloosa darter,
consistent with provisions of a final 4(d)
special rule, if adopted, would not
appreciably diminish the likelihood of
recovery of the Okaloosa darter.
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This rule, if made final, would revise
our regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
reclassify the Okaloosa darter from
endangered to threatened throughout its
range on the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. If made final,
this rule would formally recognize that
this species is no longer in imminent
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
However, this reclassification would not
significantly change the protection
afforded this species under the Act. The
regulatory protections of section 9 and
section 7 of the Act would remain in
place. Anyone taking, attempting to
take, or otherwise possessing an
Okaloosa darter, or parts thereof, in
violation of section 9 of the Act would
still be subject to a penalty under
section 11 of the Act, unless their action
is covered under a special rule under
section 4(d) of the Act. Under section 7
of the Act, Federal agencies must ensure
that any actions they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Okaloosa
darter.
If the Okaloosa darter is listed as
threatened, recovery actions directed at
the darter would continue to be
implemented as outlined in the recovery
plan for the Okaloosa darter (Service
1998), including:
(1) Restoring and protecting habitat in
the six Okaloosa darter stream
watersheds;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Protecting water quality and
quantity in the six Okaloosa darter
streams;
(3) Monitoring and annually assessing
populations and habitat conditions of
Okaloosa and brown darters, and water
quality and quantity in the streams; and
(4) Establishing a public information
and education program and evaluating
its effectiveness.
Finalization of this proposed rule
would not constitute an irreversible
commitment by the Service.
Reclassification of the Okaloosa darter
back to endangered status (uplisting)
would be possible if changes occur in
management, population status, and
habitat or other actions that
detrimentally affect the species or
increase threats to the species. Federal
agencies must still ensure that any
actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Okaloosa
darter when this action is made final.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint peer
review policy with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, ‘‘Notice of Interagency
Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in
Endangered Species Act Activities,’’ that
was published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), and the
Office of Management and Budget’s
Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004,
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding the science in this
proposed rule. The purpose of this
review is to ensure that decisions are
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will
send these peer reviewers copies of this
proposed rule immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We
will invite these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment
period, on the specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposed
reclassification of the Okaloosa darter
from endangered to threatened and our
proposed special rule. The final
decision on this proposed rule will take
into consideration all of the comments
and any additional information we
receive during the comment period.
Accordingly, the final decision may
differ from this proposal.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant under Executive Order
12866 (E.O. 12866) and has not
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5277
reviewed this rule. OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write
all rules in plain language. This means
that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Section 7 Consultation
A proposed special rule under section
4(d) of the Act is included in this
proposed downlisting rule. The Service
is not required to consult on this rule
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. The
development of protective regulations
for a threatened species are an inherent
part of the section 4 listing process. The
Service must make this determination
considering only the ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data available.’’ A necessary
part of this listing decision is also
determining what protective regulations
are ‘‘necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of [the] species.’’
Determining what prohibitions and
authorizations are necessary to conserve
the species, like the listing
determination of whether the species
meets the definition of threatened or
endangered, is not a decision that
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5278
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Congress intended to undergo section 7
consultation.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320
implement provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These regulations require that Federal
agencies obtain approval from OMB
before collecting information from the
public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR
1320.3(c) define a collection of
information as the obtaining of
information by or for an agency by
means of identical questions posed to,
or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements imposed on, 10
or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more
persons’’ refers to the persons to whom
a collection of information is addressed
by the agency within any 12-month
period. For purposes of this definition,
employees of the Federal government
are not included. The Service may not
conduct or sponsor, and you are not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This proposed rule does not contain
any collections of information that
require OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will
not impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on state or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not
need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment, or an Environmental
Impact Statement, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), in connection with regulations
adopted under section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of the references used
to develop this proposed rule is
available upon request from Don Imm,
Deputy Field Supervisor, Panama City
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this document
is Janet Mizzi, Chief, Species and
Habitat Assessment, U.S. Fish and
Species
Common name
Scientific name
*
FISHES
*
*
Darter, Okaloosa .....
*
Etheostoma
okaloosae.
*
*
*
*
Special rules—fishes.
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(aa) Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma
okaloosae). (1) Except as noted in
paragraphs (aa)(2) and (aa)(3) of this
section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31
and exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32 apply
to the Okaloosa darter.
(i) No person may possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or
export, by any means whatsoever, any
Okaloosa darters taken in violation of
this section or in violation of applicable
state fish and wildlife conservation laws
or regulations.
(ii) It is unlawful for any person to
attempt to commit, solicit another to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Feb 01, 2010
*
*
U.S.A. (FL) .............
3. Amend § 17.44 by adding a new
paragraph (aa) to read as follows:
§ 17.44
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
Historic
range
Jkt 220001
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
We propose to amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law
99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the
entry for ‘‘Darter, Okaloosa’’ under
‘‘FISHES’’ in the list of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
*
T
*
6
Sfmt 9990
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
*
Entire ......................
Fmt 4702
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
*
*
Frm 00026
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Status
*
commit, or cause to be committed, any
offense listed in this special rule.
(2) The following activities, which
may result in incidental take of the
Okaloosa darter, are allowed on Eglin
Air Force Base (AFB), provided that the
activities occur in accordance with
applicable Federal, state and local laws,
and are consistent with a Serviceapproved Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan by Eglin AFB and
with Eglin AFB’s Threatened and
Endangered Species Component Plan:
(i) Prescribed fire for land
management to promote a healthy
ecosystem;
(ii) Instream habitat restoration;
(iii) Unpaved range road stabilization;
and
(iv) Removal or replacement of
culverts for the purpose of road
PO 00000
Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional
Office, Atlanta, GA.
Special
rules
*
NA
*
17.44(aa)
*
decommissioning, improving fish
passage, or enhancing stream habitat.
(3) Scientific research and monitoring
activities that may result in incidental
take of the Okaloosa darter are allowed,
provided these activities are consistent
with a Service-approved Okaloosa
darter recovery plan, or otherwise
approved by the Service, whether those
activities occur on and off of Eglin AFB.
(4) All activities not listed in
paragraph (aa)(2) and (aa)(3) of this
section that result in take of the
Okaloosa darter are prohibited.
Dated: January 14, 2010.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–2007 Filed 2–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5263-5278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2007]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0071; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018--AW07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Reclassification of the Okaloosa Darter From Endangered to Threatened
and Proposed Special Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify the Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae) from endangered
to threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). The endangered designation no longer correctly
reflects the current status of this fish due to a substantial
improvement in the species' status. This proposed action is based on a
thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data,
which indicates a substantial reduction in threats to the species,
significant habitat restoration in most of the species' range, and a
stable or increasing trend of darters in all darter stream systems. We
also propose a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act. This special
rule would allow Eglin Air Force Base to continue activities, with a
reduced regulatory burden, and would provide a net benefit to the
Okaloosa darter. We are seeking information, data and comments from the
public on this proposal.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this
proposed rule, they must be received on or before April 5, 2010. We
must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by March 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2008-0071.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2008-0071; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, Deputy Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, 1601 Balboa Ave.,
Panama City, FL 32405; telephone (850) 769-0552. Individuals who are
hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comment Procedures
To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you
send relevant information for our consideration. The comments that will
be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that are
supported by data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include
citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please
make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for
them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data
you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning
the following:
(1) Biological, trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat
(or lack thereof) to the Okaloosa darter, including whether or not
climate change is a threat to the Okaloosa darter;
(2) The location of any additional populations of the Okaloosa
darter;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size and population trends of the Okaloosa darter;
(4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the Okaloosa darter that may impact or benefit the species including
the proposed toll bypass road; and
(5) Activities relevant to Okaloosa darter and its habitat that are
proposed for inclusion in the special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that a
determination as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you
submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. Please note that comments posted to this Web site are
[[Page 5264]]
not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system
receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publically
viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days
after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will
be available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search
Documents box, enter, FWS-R4-ES-2008-0071, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the
Document Type heading.
(2) You can make an appointment during normal business hours to
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Panama City Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by the date shown in the DATES section. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at
least 15 days before the first hearing.
Previous Federal Action
We proposed listing the Okaloosa darter as endangered on January
15, 1973 (38 FR 1521) and listed the species as endangered under the
Act on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678) due to its extremely limited range,
habitat degradation, and apparent competition from a possibly
introduced related species, the brown darter. We completed a recovery
plan for the species on October 23, 1981, and a revised recovery plan
on October 26, 1998.
On June 21, 2005, we provided notice in the Federal Register that
we were initiating a 5-year status review under the Act for the
Okaloosa darter (70 FR 35689). In that notice, we specifically
requested information on:
(1) The status of the Okaloosa darter in areas outside the
boundaries of Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida;
(2) Threats to the species and its habitat, including the areas in
the Turkey Creek, Swift Creek, and East Turkey Creek watersheds outside
the boundaries of Eglin AFB; and
(3) Conservation measures in these same areas that may have
benefited the Okaloosa darter.
The 5-year status review was completed in July 2007, and is
available on our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/okaloosa_darterfinal.pdf.
Background
The Okaloosa darter, Etheostoma okaloosae, is a member of the
family Percidae. It is a small, perch-like fish (maximum size is 49
millimeters (mm) (1.93 inches (in.)) Standard Length) that is
characterized by a well-developed humeral spot, a series of five to
eight rows of small spots along the sides of the body, and the first
anal spine being longer than the second. General body coloration varies
from red-brown to green-yellow dorsally, and lighter ventrally,
although breeding males have a bright orange submarginal stripe on the
first dorsal fin (Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 23).
The Okaloosa darter is known to occur in only six clear stream
systems that drain into two Choctawhatchee Bay bayous in Walton and
Okaloosa Counties in northwest Florida. They have been found only in
the tributaries and main channels of Toms, Turkey, Mill, Swift, East
Turkey, and Rocky Creeks. Approximately 90 percent of the 457 square
kilometer (176 square mile) watershed drainage area is under the
management of Eglin AFB, and we estimate that 98.7 percent of the
darter's extant range is within the boundaries of Eglin AFB. The
remainder of the watershed and extant range is within the urban complex
of the Cities of Niceville and Valparaiso (USAF 2006, p. 3-1).
Longleaf pine-wiregrass-red oak sandhill communities dominate the
vegetation landscape in Okaloosa darter watershed basins. These areas
are characterized by high sand ridges where soil nutrients are low and
woodland fire is a regular occurrence. Where water seeps from these
hills, acid bog communities of Sphagnum sp. (sphagnum moss), Sarracenia
sp. (pitcher plants), and other plants adapted to low nutrient soils
develop. In other areas, the water emerges from seepage springs
directly into clear flowing streams where variation of both temperature
and flow is moderated by the deep layers of sand. The streams support a
mixture of Mayaca fluviatilis (bog moss), Scirpus etuberculatus
(bulrush), Orontium aquaticum (golden club), Sparganium americanum
(burr-weed), Potamogeton diversifolius (pondweed), Eleocharis sp.
(spikerush), and other aquatic and emergent plants.
Okaloosa darters typically inhabit the margins of moderate to fast
flowing streams where detritus, root mats, and vegetation are present.
Historic densities averaged about two darters per meter (3.28 feet) of
stream length while more recent abundance estimates show an increase to
an average of 2.9 darters per meter (Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 3; USAF
2006, p. 3-1). They have not been collected in areas where there is no
current or in open sandy areas in the middle of the stream channel. The
creeks with Okaloosa darters are generally shaded over most of their
courses, with temperatures ranging from 20[deg] to 22[deg] Celsius
(68[deg] to 72[deg] Fahrenheit) in the winter (Tate 2008, pers. comm.)
to 22[deg] to 24[deg] Celsius (72[deg] to 75[deg] Fahrenheit) in the
summer (Mettee and Crittenden 1977, p. 5).
Okaloosa darters feed primarily on fly larvae (Diptera sp.) mayfly
nymphs (Ephemeroptera sp.), and caddis fly (Trichoptera sp.) larvae
(Ogilvie 1980, as referenced in Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 26). The
breeding season extends from late March through October, although it
usually peaks in April. Spawning pairs have been videographed attaching
one or two eggs to vegetation, and observed attaching eggs to woody
debris and root mats (Collete and Yerger 1962, p. 226; Burkhead et al.
1994, p. 81). Ogilvie (1980, as referenced in Burkhead et al. 1992, p.
26) found a mean of 76 ova (unfertilized eggs) and 29 mature ova in 201
female Okaloosa darters, although these numbers may underrepresent
annual fecundity as the prolonged spawning season is an indication of
[[Page 5265]]
fractional spawning (eggs develop and mature throughout the spawning
season). Estimates of longevity range from 2 to 4 years (Burkhead et
al. 1992, p. 27; Tate 2008, pers. comm.).
Recovery
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and
endangered species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to the
maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions that may be necessary to
achieve the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria, which when met would result in
a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the list; and
(3) Estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the plan.
However, revisions to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying
a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections
4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the
Secretary determine whether a species is threatened or endangered (or
not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Therefore, recovery
criteria must indicate when a species is no longer threatened or
endangered by any of the five factors. In other words, objective,
measurable criteria, or recovery criteria, contained in recovery plans
must indicate when an analysis of the five threat factors under 4(a)(1)
would result in a determination that a species is no longer threatened
or endangered. Section 4(b) requires the determination made under
section 4(a)(1) as to whether a species is threatened or endangered
because of one or more of the five factors be based on the best
available science.
Thus, while recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the
Service, states, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to
listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when
recovery is achieved, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulation
required under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to remove a species from
the list made under section 4(a)(1) must be based on the best
scientific and commercial data available at the time of the
determination, regardless of whether that information differs from the
recovery plan.
In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species,
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded
while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the Service
may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently,
and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from
endangered to threatened or perhaps delist the species. In other cases,
recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at
the time the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be
used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing
recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management, planning, implementing, and
evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not,
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species is ultimately
based on an analysis of whether a species is no longer threatened or
endangered. The following discussion provides a brief review of
recovery planning for the Okaloosa darter as well as an analysis of the
recovery criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status of
the species.
The recovery plan for the Okaloosa darter was approved on October
23, 1981 (Service 1981, 18 pp.) and revised on October 26, 1998
(Service 1998, 42 pp.). The recovery plan identifies a recovery
objective of downlisting, and eventually delisting, the Okaloosa darter
by enabling wild populations capable of coping with natural habitat
fluctuations to persist indefinitely in the six stream systems they
inhabit by restoring and protecting stream habitat, water quality, and
water quantity. The Okaloosa darter may be considered for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (downlisted) when:
(1) Instream flows and historical habitat of stream systems have
been protected through management plans, conservation agreements,
easements or acquisitions or both;
(2) Eglin AFB has and is implementing an effective habitat
restoration program to control erosion from roads, clay pits, and open
ranges;
(3) The Okaloosa darter population is stable or increasing and
comprised of two plus age-classes in all six stream systems for 5
consecutive years;
(4) The range of the Okaloosa darter has not decreased at all
historical monitoring sites; and
(5) No foreseeable threats exist that would impact the survival of
the species.
For more information on the recovery plan for the Okaloosa darter,
a copy of the plan is posted on our Web site at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/970407.pdf.
Each of the above criteria for downlisting the Okaloosa darter to
threatened has been met, as described below. Additionally, the level of
protection currently afforded to the species and its habitat and the
current status of threats are outlined in the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section below.
Downlisting Criterion (1): Instream Flows and Historical Habitat of
Stream Systems Have Been Protected Through Management Plans,
Conservation Agreements, Easements or Acquisitions or Both
Water quality, water quantity and stream habitat have been
adequately protected or restored for the Okaloosa darter. The Okaloosa
darter's extant range occurs almost exclusively (98.7 percent) within
the boundaries of Eglin AFB. This affords the species considerable
protections from development and large-scale habitat disturbances.
Eglin AFB is implementing an effective habitat restoration program to
control erosion from roads, borrow pits (areas where materials like
sand or gravel are removed for use at another location), and cleared
test ranges. Since 1995, Eglin AFB has restored 317 sites covering
196.2 hectares (ha) (484.8 acres (ac)) that were eroding into Okaloosa
darter streams. All 38 borrow pits within Okaloosa darter drainages are
now stabilized (59.3 ha; 146.5 ac) (USAF 2005, p. 3-18). The other 279
sites (136.9 ha; 338.3 ac) included in the total area are characterized
as non-point sources (pollution created from larger processes and not
from one concentrated point source, like excess sediment from a
construction site washing into a stream after a rain) of stream
sedimentation. Eglin AFB
[[Page 5266]]
estimates that these efforts have reduced soil loss from roughly 69,000
tons/year in darter watersheds in 1994 to approximately 3,000 tons/year
in 2004 (Pizzalotto 2005, pers. comm.). As of 2006, Eglin AFB had
completed about 95 percent of the erosion control projects identified
for the darter watersheds (USAF 2006, p. 3-5). Restoration activities
began earlier in the Boggy Bayou drainages. Accordingly, darter numbers
increased in the Boggy Bayou drainages earlier than in the Rocky Bayou
drainages. Increases in darter numbers over the past 10 years generally
track the cumulative area restored in that timeframe (Jordan and Jelks
2004, p. 9).
Many road crossing structures have been eliminated as part of Eglin
AFB's restoration activities. Of the 152 road crossings that previously
existed in Okaloosa darter drainages, 57 have been eliminated: 28 in
Boggy Bayou streams, and 29 in Rocky Bayou streams. Most of these were
likely barriers to fish passage or problems for stream channel
stability, and removing them has improved habitat and reduced
population fragmentation. Of the remaining 95 road crossings, we have
determined that 21 are barriers to fish passage. Many of these are
culverts with the downstream end perched above the stream bed,
precluding the upstream movement of fish during normal and low-flow
conditions. Ten of the 21 barriers are of little to no adverse
consequence to darter habitat connectivity because they occur on the
outskirts of the current range or immediately adjacent to another
barrier or impoundment. However, darters downstream of the 11 remaining
barriers cannot move upstream during normal and low-flow conditions.
Impoundments may also fragment darter habitat and populations. Like
road-crossing barriers to passage, many of the 32 impoundments within
the darter's range are located within reaches from which darters are
extirpated or are near the margins of the extant range. Only three
impoundments, one each in the Toms Creek, Turkey Creek, and Rocky Creek
basins, separate more than 1 kilometer (km) (0.62 miles (mi)) of stream
from the rest of the stream network in the basin.
In FY 2007, Eglin AFB restored portions of Mill Creek. Staff from
Eglin Natural Resources, the Eglin golf course, and the Service
determined that it was feasible to restore all impoundments upstream of
Plew Lake, the largest impoundment on the system, to free-flowing
streams and to remove all but one of the culverts that convey the
stream underneath fairways on the golf course. The Service prepared the
designs for the restoration, and Eglin AFB and Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) secured funding for the work,
which was completed in May 2007. Present in the smallest of the six
darter watersheds, the darter population in Mill Creek is probably most
vulnerable to extirpation. We anticipate that restoration at Mill Creek
will secure a viable population in this system. Eglin and FWC also
secured funding for removal of the abandoned railroad crossing of
Little Rocky Creek and completed the removal in May 2007. These two
projects eliminated five fish passage barriers and three impoundments,
restoring approximately 3 km (1.8 mi) of stream habitat.
Accomplishments have been made in recovering Okaloosa darter habitat,
and the Service continues to work with Eglin AFB, the City of
Niceville, and Okaloosa and Walton Counties to restore additional
habitat through the removal and replacement of road crossings and
impoundments throughout the darter's range.
The management plans of several agencies apply to streams in the
range of the Okaloosa darter and are being implemented to protect this
fish's water quality and quantity and its overall habitat. Probably the
most influential of these is Eglin's Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP) (USAF 2007), including the Final Threatened and
Endangered Species Component Plan (USAF 2006). The INRMP is updated
every 5 years in consultation with the Service and FWC (see Factor D.
under the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below for
further detail and description of Department of Defense (DOD)
protections, and the Available Conservation Measures section for
Endangered Species Act protections). The INRMP defines goals and
specific objectives for managing natural resources on the base. The
primary goal of Okaloosa darter management on Eglin AFB is to provide
the highest level of capability and flexibility to the military testing
and training mission while meeting the legal requirements of the
Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and
other applicable laws. Another goal of the 2007 INRMP is to maintain or
restore hydrologic processes in streams, floodplains, and wetlands when
feasible. The specific objectives of Okaloosa darter management on
Eglin AFB include:
(1) Downlist the Okaloosa darter from endangered to threatened by
the end of 2007 and delist the darter by the end of 2012;
(2) Complete the restoration of Mill Creek for Okaloosa darter by
2008;
(3) Annually restore 2 fish passage barriers from the 20 identified
sites in Okaloosa darter drainages as funding allows;
(4) Develop a public information and awareness program for
threatened and endangered species on Eglin AFB that have greater
potential to be impacted by public activities, such as Okaloosa
darters;
(5) Complete a program by 2010 that would include an A3 class
(combined with Endangered Species Act class), informational brochures,
and portable display boards;
(6) Cooperate with the City of Niceville, Okaloosa County, and
private landowners adjacent to Eglin AFB to recover the Okaloosa
darter;
(7) Identify and rehabilitate 150 soil erosion sites that have the
potential to impact threatened and endangered species (Gulf sturgeon
and Okaloosa darter) habitat by 2011; and
(8) Train and use Okaloosa darter monitoring crews and aquatic
monitoring crews to survey and report the presence of invasive
nonnative plants and animals during their regular monitoring activities
and treat invasive nonnative plants as necessary.
In 2005, the Service, Eglin's Natural Resources Branch, the Nature
Conservancy, and the FWC signed an agreement to cooperate in the
stewardship of aquatic systems on lands of the Gulf Coastal Plain
Ecosystem Partnership (GCPEP) in western Florida. GCPEP's Aquatic Team
agreed to initially assign priority to strategies and projects that
contribute to the recovery of the Okaloosa darter. We are working with
GCPEP to use stream restoration techniques and management actions that
have been established for Okaloosa darter watersheds on partner lands.
The Three Rivers Resource Conservation and Development Council is a
nonprofit organization set up to conserve the natural resources for,
and to improve the overall economic condition of, rural and urban
citizens. The Council is composed of representatives from the county
Commissions and Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and includes
three members at large from Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton,
Bay, Washington, and Holmes Counties in Florida. The Council has
developed an Area Plan (2003-2008) which includes:
(1) A natural resources goal of encouraging proper management use
and protection of the natural resource base;
[[Page 5267]]
(2) An objective to assist local military bases in conservation
planning efforts;
(3) A strategy to continue a non-point project to control erosion
with Eglin AFB; and
(4) Several projects funded for 2008 that will assist with Okaloosa
darter restoration.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2003)
classifies all streams in the range of the Okaloosa darter as Class III
waters for administration of the Clean Water Act. Class III waters are
used for recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-
balanced population of fish and wildlife. Although no streams in the
Okaloosa darter's range are designated as impaired in DEP's 2003 Basin
Status Report, six stream segments are on the ``3c planning list,''
which means that ``enough data and information are present to determine
that one or more designated uses may not be attained according to the
Planning List methodology.'' The six segments are:
(1) Anderson Branch (Turkey Creek tributary);
(2) Lower Turkey Creek (including South Branch near the City of
Niceville landfill and the rest of the basin downstream to Boggy
Bayou);
(3) Mill Creek;
(4) Shaw Still Branch (Swift Creek Basin);
(5) Little Rocky Creek; and
(6) Open Branch (Rocky Creek Basin).
All six segments are considered potentially impaired using a set of
three biological indicators based upon aquatic insect samples. DEP
characterized a site on South Branch near the landfill as severely
limited by pollutants from the landfill (Ray 2001, p. 1).
Using aquatic insect sampling methods and indicators comparable to
DEP's, we sampled 42 sites in the darter's range (Thom and Herod 2005,
pp. 4-3 thru 4-17). About 26 sites appeared healthy, 4 were suspect,
and 12 were impaired. Three small darter basins, Mill Creek, Swift
Creek, and East Turkey Creek, had the highest percentage of impaired
sites. Several sites in these three basins, plus a site on South Branch
near the Niceville landfill, also had unusually high stream
conductivity measurements, which is generally an indicator of degraded
water quality (Thom and Herod 2005, p. 5-3). It appears likely that the
wastewater treatment sprayfields located near the headwaters of East
Turkey Creek and Swift Creek are adversely affecting water quality, as
this is the principal non-forested land use in the area. The Okaloosa
darter recovery plan identifies wastewater treatment sprayfields as
potential sources of habitat degradation.
In 2007, the Service, along with the U.S. Geological Survey, Loyola
University, and Eglin AFB, initiated a 3-year research project to
comprehensively assess water quality data for these two streams.
Preliminary samples show unusually high conductivity and salinity--an
indication of wastewater introduction. Water quality data will be
compared to darter population status and trends information. This will
enable us to identify the problems and recommend corrective actions
that will prevent future declines in Okaloosa darter populations.
Elimination of stressors originating from these sprayfields will
prevent continued declines in Okaloosa darter populations. It will also
achieve recovery objectives outlined in the recovery plan (Objectives
2.2, 3.2, 3.2.2), and meet a critical delisting criterion (1F).
The Eglin golf course dominates land use in the Mill Creek Basin.
Along with West Long Creek in the Rocky Creek Basin, these are the same
drainages where monitoring suggests darter numbers have been declining
in recent years. As noted above, the Service and Eglin AFB have
recently completed a habitat restoration project in the portion of Mill
Creek that runs through the Eglin golf course. Work is ongoing to
assess causes of declines in East Turkey and West Long Creeks.
The Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance (a citizen's group), along with
supporting state and Federal agencies, is implementing a program called
``Breaking New Ground,'' which is a set of place-based air and
watershed action plans for the Choctawhatchee River and Bay watershed.
These plans address water quality monitoring, point- and non-point
source pollution, growth management, water supply, education, and
citizen involvement in all Choctawhatchee Bay watersheds, including the
darter drainages. This planning effort has resulted in the funding of
studies to assess point and non-point source water pollution in the
basin, including darter watersheds, and is expected to continue to
assist in identifying and addressing potential long-term water quality
and supply issues in the watershed, which is a positive step towards
securing permanent protections for Okaloosa darter water quality and
quantity.
In addition, the Northwest Florida Water Management District
(NWFWMD) (in conjunction with the DEP) has a Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Plan that addresses water issues in the
Choctawhatchee River and Bay System, including the projected water
supply needs of the coastal portions of Okaloosa and Walton Counties.
Protecting water-dependent endangered species and their habitats are
integral components of the SWIM Plan. In its water supply plan for the
counties that encompass the range of the darter, the NWFWMD examines
the water sources that could supply growing human water demands in the
region (Bartel et al. 2000). Depending on its magnitude and spatial
distribution, substantial new use of the Sand and Gravel Aquifer could
diminish stream flow in the darter streams; however, the potential well
fields that the NWFWMD identified are located south and west of the
darter drainages.
The opportunities for easements or acquisitions or both to protect
the Okaloosa darter are limited, because 98.7 percent of the extant
range is on Federal land. Because Eglin AFB and others have
demonstrated a commitment to recovery of the Okaloosa darter through
natural resource management planning and coordination with the Service,
we consider this downlisting criterion to be satisfied.
Downlisting Criterion (2): Eglin AFB Has (and Is Implementing) an
Effective Habitat Restoration Program To Control Erosion From Roads,
Clay Pits, and Open Ranges
Eglin AFB has implemented a habitat restoration program to control
erosion since 1995. The details and accomplishments previously
described above in downlisting criterion (1) all contribute to this
criterion. Based on the facts shared above, Eglin AFB has effectively
implemented this downlisting criterion and continues to make additional
progress in reducing remaining erosion problems on the base. These
actions have resulted in identifiable increases in Okaloosa darter
numbers and occupied range. We will continue to partner with Eglin AFB
to find similar opportunities like Mill Creek to restore habitat and
reduce erosion.
In addition, Eglin's Threatened and Endangered Species Component
Plan (Eglin 2006, pp. 3-3 and 3-4) identifies several objectives for
the Okaloosa darter, including the development of a public information
program for threatened and endangered species on Eglin AFB that have
greater potential to be impacted by public activities. The public
information program would include an Air Armament Academy (A3) class
(Eglin's civilian employee training program), combined with an
Endangered Species Act class,
[[Page 5268]]
informational brochures, and portable display boards. The goal of
completion of the public information program is 2010. The program will
be provided to both Eglin military users and the general public. As of
December 2007, Eglin has completed two brochures and portable display
boards. There is also a permanent display board in the lobby of the
Natural Resources Section, known as Jackson Guard, which provides
information to the public about the darter and efforts to protect and
restore its habitat. The A3 class is in the process of being designed,
and as needed it will be scheduled and presented twice a year beginning
in 2008. Additionally, tours of Eglin, for military personnel, non-
government delegates, and the general public frequently involve
presentations of ongoing darter conservation activities. Because Eglin
AFB and others have demonstrated a commitment to recovery of the
Okaloosa darter through natural resource management planning and
coordination with the Service, we consider this downlisting criterion
to be satisfied.
Downlisting Criterion (3): Okaloosa Darter Population Is Stable or
Increasing and Comprised of Two Plus Age-Classes in All Six Stream
Systems for 5 Consecutive Years
We had no estimate of population size at the time of listing,
although the historic range of the Okaloosa darter is fairly well
documented. Relative abundance estimates were determined annually from
1987-88 to 1998 while monitoring increases in sprayfield loading at
Eglin AFB. Bortone (1999, p. 15) compared the relative abundance
(number per sampling hour) of darters at 16 to 18 stations over 10
sampling seasons. The mean number of Okaloosa darters per sample (in
those samples that yielded darters) was slightly lower in the earlier
sampling period (1987 to 1991), higher during the middle sampling years
(1992 to 1997), and distinctly lower in 1998 and 1999. Bortone (1999,
p. 9) concluded that this may not have indicated an overall trend in
the reduction in Okaloosa darters as much as it may be indicative of
changes that specifically reduced preferable habitat and increased
sampling effectiveness at certain sites, as several sites were altered
by beaver activity while others became more rooted with undergrowth.
Generally, the data do not indicate any overall major trends in decline
or increase during the 10-year sampling period (Bortone 1999, p. 10).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and cooperators have surveyed
between 12 and 60 sites for Okaloosa darters annually since 1995
(Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 2), primarily using visual counts in 20-m
(66-ft) segments. Collectively, Jordan and Jelks' data show an almost
tripling of darter numbers in a 10-year timeframe, from an average of
about 20 darters per 20-m (66-ft) segment sampled in 1995 to about 55
darters per segment in 2004. A dip in the increasing trend occurred in
2001 and 2002, which corresponded with years of regional drought
conditions. Even during these years, however, darter numbers were
almost double those of 1995 and 1996.
The current rangewide population, estimated by applying Jordan and
Jelks (2004, p. 3) study area-wide density estimate of 3.1 darters per
meter (m) (or per 3.28 feet) to our estimates of occupied stream length
in each of the six Okaloosa darter basins, gives a total population
estimate of 802,668 darters with an estimated 625,279 mature
individuals (Service 2007, Table 2). In order to expand the surveyed
range of the species, 69 sites were seine surveyed in 50-m (164-ft)
segments by the Service in 2004-2005, with many of those being outside
the area surveyed by Jordan and Jelks (2004). Observed segment
densities were transformed to local abundance estimates based upon
Jordan and Jelks' (2004, App. 1) comparison of seine versus visual
counts and depletion sampling. These surveys produced an overall
density estimate of 1.28 darters per meter (or per 3.28 ft) and an
abundance estimate of 259,355 mature individuals (Service 2007, Table
3). Acknowledging the greater error likely associated with seine-based
calculations, they provide a more conservative population estimate.
Annual population monitoring is conducted at 26 long-term
monitoring sites by the USGS per the sampling methodology outlined in
the Okaloosa darter recovery plan (Service 1998). This methodology has
evolved into counting darters using mask and snorkel visual surveys,
and includes collection of numerous habitat conditions including water
depth and discharge, substrate type, and canopy cover. Annual
monitoring has been conducted on Eglin AFB by personnel from Loyola
University (New Orleans) and the Service since 1995, and on private
lands since 1987. For complete information, see the Service's 2007 5-
year status review of the Okaloosa darter (Service 2007).
Downlisting criterion number (3) is further defined in Appendix A
of the Okaloosa darter recovery plan to include a specific standardized
sampling methodology. An operational definition of a ``stable''
population is also provided in Appendix A of the recovery plan. The
definition of a ``stable'' population applies to 26 long-term
monitoring sites and has three parts:
(1) Okaloosa darter numbers remain above 1.75 standard deviations
below the cumulative long-term average at each of the monitoring sites;
(2) The long-term trend in the average counts at each monitoring
site is increasing, or neutral; and
(3) The range that the species inhabits is not decreased by more
than a 500-meter (1,640.4-ft) stream reach within any of the six stream
systems.
Although the darter meets the criterion for a stable population,
the validity of the criteria in the operational definition of
``stable'' has come into question since 1998 when the recovery plan was
prepared.
As identified in our 2007 5-year status review of the Okaloosa
darter (Service 2007, p. 6), monitoring has shown that natural
variation coupled with sampling method (seining versus visual survey)
might result in a variation greater than 1.75 standard deviations while
still maintaining a stable or increasing trend. Therefore, we have
found that this operational definition may no longer reflect the best
available science. Current estimates of Okaloosa darter numbers have
instead been calculated using two different methods of standardizing
monitoring and survey data. Using visual survey methods in 28 20[dash]m
(66-ft) segments of stream, encompassing the six principal basins, a
study areawide density estimate was then applied to the known occupied
stream length for a total population estimate of 802,668 darters
(Service 2007, Table 2). A population estimate based on seine samples,
which transformed density estimates to local abundance estimates based
upon Jordan and Jelks' (Jordan and Jelks 2004, App. 1; Jordan et al.
2008) comparison of seine versus visual counts and depletion sampling,
calculated a 2004-2005 population estimate of 302,590 darters (Service
2007, Table 3).
The long-term trend in the average counts at each monitoring site
indicates that the four smallest darter basins (Toms, Swift, Mill, and
East Turkey), as well as West Long Creek and East Long Creek, are
decreasing while the other watersheds of Rocky Creek and Turkey Creek
are increasing. However, after restoration activities on Mill Creek in
2007, darter numbers are now increasing. Using the estimated length of
occupied habitat for these creeks, darter numbers are increasing in
223.6 km (138.9 mi) or 86 percent of their range and decreasing in 37.1
km (23.1
[[Page 5269]]
mi) or 14 percent of their range. All of the declining trends were
sampled by seining, not visual surveys, and may reflect variable
sampling efficiency over time. For example, one site has become almost
impossible to seine due to the exposure of tree roots resulting from
stream bed degradation. Because seining detects only about 32 percent
as many Okaloosa darters as visual surveys (Jordan and Jelks 2004,
App.1), the long-term trends in darter counts at sites sampled by seine
may be subject to error during interpretation. Furthermore, there
appears to be a reduction in numbers at many of the sites beginning in
1998, prior to which counts appear to be relatively consistent or
generally increasing, which may correspond to a drought which began
in1998 or could reflect a difference in sampling ability as a shift in
USGS personnel occurred at this time.
The range of the Okaloosa darter is represented as the cumulative
stream length of occupancy in a basin. However, the annual monitoring
identified in the recovery plan is not specifically designed to measure
the length of a range reduction. Therefore, we are unable to determine
whether part (3) of the operational definition of ``stable'' (A
population will be considered stable if * * * (3) the range that the
species inhabits is not decreased by more than a 500-meter (1,640.4-ft)
stream reach within any of the six stream systems) has been met.
Further, as noted previously, seining has been shown (Jordan et al.
2008, p. 313) to detect only about 32 percent as many darters as visual
surveys, increasing the probability of incorrectly concluding that
darters are absent when using this survey method. Acknowledging these
limitations, we consider this downlisting criterion to be satisfied.
Okaloosa darters appear to have expanded their range in two areas, one
in Mill Creek following habitat restoration activities in 2007, and the
other a 1- to 2-mile expansion in the southern/western tributary of
Tom's Creek previously thought to be uninhabited. Annual population
monitoring by USGS has detected young-of-the-year and adult fish in all
six stream systems for the past 5 years (Service 2007).
Downlisting Criterion (4): The Range of the Okaloosa Darter Has Not
Decreased at All Historical Monitoring Sites
As noted above, trends in the range of the Okaloosa darter are
difficult to interpret. However, darters appear to have expanded their
range in two tributaries: Mill's Creek and the southern/western
tributary of Tom's Creek. Although Okaloosa darters appear to have
decreased their range in Swift's Creek, this decrease seems to have
occurred prior to 1987. The Okaloosa darter has been extirpated from
only about 9 percent of the 402 km (249.8 mi) of streams that comprise
its total historical range. Given that the small decrease likely
occurred more than 20 years ago, and since then the species has
expanded their range as noted above, we consider this criterion to be
met.
Downlisting Criterion (5): No Foreseeable Threats Exist That Would
Impact the Survival of the Species
At this stage of the recovery of Okaloosa darter, threats remain
under Listing Factor A: The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. Resource
stewardship on Eglin AFB is generally reducing the threat of habitat
destruction and range reduction from sedimentation from unpaved roads
and areas adjacent to poorly designed or maintained paved roads. As of
2006, about 95 percent of the erosion control projects identified in
darter watersheds had been completed (USAF 2006, pp. 3-5). Eglin AFB is
continuing to fund these projects to completely eliminate the threat.
We will continue to work with Eglin AFB to remove remaining erosion
sources or point and non point pollution sources in Okaloosa darter
habitat. In addition, new projects are being considered on Eglin AFB
and we will work with the AFB to ensure Okaloosa darter habitat is
protected. Although water quality issues associated with the Niceville
landfill and sprayfield continue to threaten the darter, they are being
examined in a 3-year research project, which began in 2007. We recently
worked with the city of Niceville to improve its wastewater collection
system and install more appropriate culverts at a number of road
crossings. In addition, as stated above, a few of the Okaloosa darter's
streams have been indicated as potentially impaired due to biological
indicators. We will continue to work with Eglin to determine the causes
of impairment and remove them. Proposed plans to assign additional
military forces to Eglin AFB may alter the military mission and could
potentially impact Okaloosa darter populations. On the smaller creeks,
where we noted a general long-term decline in average counts, we will
continue to investigate if habitat attributes at these sites are the
cause while simultaneously trying to improve survey protocols.
The Okaloosa darter was listed in 1973 as an endangered species. At
the time of listing, the species faced significantly greater threats
than it does today, as evidenced by the numerous recovery actions to
date that have improved and restored its habitat conditions. These
recovery actions include completing 95 percent of the erosion control
projects identified in darter watersheds, thereby significantly
reducing the most intense threat to the species (see the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section below for further details). Now,
more than 35 years after it was listed under the Act, the Okaloosa
darter continues to survive and its overall status has improved. Given
that the threats to the species have been significantly reduced, and
that for the purposes of this proposed rule we have defined
``foreseeable future'' for the Okaloosa darter as a 20-year period (see
the Foreseeable Future section below), we have determined that the
Okaloosa darter has recovered to the point where it now better meets
the definition of a threatened species--one that is ``likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' In other words, although some
threats to the Okaloosa darter continue to exist, these threats are not
likely to cause the species to become extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of its range within the next 20 years. Data
collected on the distribution and abundance of the species indicate
that the species' range has expanded and overall population numbers are
increasing. The Okaloosa darter has met all five downlisting criteria
in its recovery plan.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species.
``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate
population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined, we then evaluate
whether that species may be endangered or threatened because of one or
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Those
factors are: (1) Habitat modification, destruction, or curtailment; (2)
overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific
or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
[[Page 5270]]
affecting it's continued existence. We must consider these same five
factors in reclassifying or delisting a species. Listing,
reclassifying, or delisting may be warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, either singly or in combination.
For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered,
this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect
the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or
downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The word ``species'' also includes any subspecies
or, for vertebrates, distinct population segments. The word ``range''
in the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) refers to the
range in which the species currently exists, and the word
``significant'' refers to the value of that portion of the range being
considered to the conservation of the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' However,
in a January 16, 2009, memorandum addressed to the Acting Director of
the Service from the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the
Interior, concluded, ``* * * as used in the [Act], Congress intended
the term `foreseeable future' to describe the extent to which the
Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making
determinations about the future conservation status of the species''
(U.S. Department of the Interior 2009). ``Foreseeable future'' is
determined by the Service on a case-by-case basis, taking into
consideration a variety of species-specific factors such as lifespan,
genetics, breeding behavior, demography, threat projection timeframes,
and environmental variability.
In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status
of the Okaloosa darter, we defined the ``foreseeable future'' to be the
extent to which, given the amount and substance of available data,
events, or effects can and should be anticipated, or the threats
reasonably extrapolated. We considered the historical data to identify
any relevant existing threats acting on the species, ongoing
conservation efforts, data on species abundance and persistence at
individual sites since the time of listing, identifiable informational
gaps and uncertainties regarding residual and emerging threats to the
species, as well as population status and trends, its life history, and
then looked to see if reliable predictions about the status of the
species in response to those factors could be drawn. We considered the
historical data to identify any relevant existing trends that might
allow for reliable prediction of the future (in the form of
extrapolating the trends). We also considered whether we could reliably
predict any future events (not yet acting on the species and therefore
not yet manifested in a trend) that might affect the status of the
species, recognizing that our ability to make reliable predictions into
the future is limited by the variable quantity and quality of available
data.
The average lifespan of an Okaloosa darter is 2-4 years with a
breeding season that extends from March to October, peaking in April.
This lengthy breeding season is an indicator of fractional spawning
(eggs develop and mature throughout the spawning season). The early
results of recently funded and ongoing genetic studies of the darter
indicate that the two large lineages (Turkey and Rocky Creek) are
similar in size and have been relatively stable since diverging from
their ancestral population (Austin 2007, pers. comm.), suggesting
demographic stability over time. Therefore, a genetics consideration
does not appear relevant to determination of the foreseeable future.
Threat projection timeframes are typically fairly short for
Okaloosa darter and range from the 5-year planning cycle of the INRMP,
to mission-specific activities that can arise at any time, to the
Department of Transportation's 20-year planning projections. Lastly,
because the darter's streams are mostly small, spring-fed systems,
environmental variability is most simply expressed in terms of the
variability in the hydrologic cycle.
The Okaloosa darter recovery plan identifies one recovery
criterion, a stable or increasing population for 20 years, based on the
20-year hydrologic cycle. Therefore, for the purposes of this proposed
rule, we define ``foreseeable future'' for the Okaloosa darter as a 20-
year period, which encompasses both the variable hydrologic cycle and
the long-term planning projections. Given the available data, we
believe this represents a reasonable timeframe to measure demographic
changes that could reflect potential threat factors to the Okaloosa
darter.
The following threats analysis examines the five factors currently
affecting, or that are likely to affect the listed Okaloosa darter
within the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this analysis, we
will first evaluate whether the currently listed species, the Okaloosa
darter, should be considered threatened or endangered throughout its
range. Then we will consider whether there are any portions of the
species' range where it is in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Okaloosa darter was listed under the Act in 1973, because of
its extremely limited range and potential problems resulting from
erosion, water impoundment, and competition with brown darters. The
Okaloosa darter has been extirpated from only about 9 percent of the
402 km (249.8 mi) of streams that comprise its total historical range.
This historic loss of range is most likely due to physical and chemical
habitat degradation from sediment and pollutant loading and the
urbanization of the City of Niceville. Recent surveys in a southern/
western tributary of Tom's Creek, however, have established the
darter's presence in a 1- to 2-mile stretch of stream previously
thought to be uninhabited. All but 5 km (3.1 mi), or 1.3 percent, of
the extant range is also currently within Eglin AFB.
Sediment loading is perhaps the most intense and uniform factor
continuing to threaten the Okaloosa darter. A recent report (Rainer et
al. 2005, pp. 3-13) identified the following primary sources of
sediment to aquatic ecosystems on Eglin AFB: accelerated streamside
erosion, borrow pits, developed areas, land test areas, silviculture,
and roads. Of these, the stream crossings of unpaved roads and
subsequent bank erosion probably have the greatest impact because of
their distribution on Eglin AFB, relative permanence as base
infrastructure, and long-term soil disturbance characteristics. The
largest remaining source of sediment input to darter streams is the
unpaved road network. As of 2005, 87 percent (4,348 km or 2,701.7 mi)
of Eglin's road network was unpaved. However, as of 2006, Eglin AFB had
completed about 95 percent of the erosion control projects identified
in darter watersheds, substantially reducing runoff and sedimentation
(USAF 2006, pp. 3-5). From 1995 to 2004, 317 borrow pits and non-point
erosion sites (485 ac) were rehabilitated and maintained. Although most
of the erosion control projects have already been completed, Eglin has
a continuing objective of identifying and rehabilitating 150 soil
erosion sites that
[[Page 5271]]
have the potential to impact threatened and endangered species like the
listed Okaloosa darter. These remaining soil erosion sites pose a
continuing threat to the darter and its habitat. For example, five road
crossings in the Turkey Creek drainage have repeatedly exceeded state
water quality standards for turbidity.
Of the 153 road crossings that previously existed in Okaloosa
darter drainages, 57 have been eliminated: 28 in Boggy Bayou streams
and 29 in Rocky Bayou streams. Eglin AFB estimates that these and other
restoration efforts have reduced soil loss from roughly 69,000 tons/
year in darter watersheds in 1994 to approximately 3,000 tons/year in
2004 (Pizzalotto 2005, pers. comm.).
Borrow pits were a major source of sediment loading to darter
streams cited in the 1998 darter recovery plan. At that time, 29 of 39
borrow pits located within or immediately adjacent to Okaloosa darter
drainages had been restored so that they no longer posed sedimentation
threats. As of 2004, all of the remaining borrow pits within Okaloosa
darter drainages have been restored and no longer pose sedimentation
threats (Rainer et al. 2005, p. 3-18).
While sedimentation and erosion problems still exist on Eglin, they
have been significantly reduced through improvements such as bottomless
culverts, bridges over streams, and bank restoration and revegetation.
There are other areas where sedimentation remains a higher magnitude
threat to the continued existence of the Okaloosa darter. Primarily in
the downstream-most portion of the darter's range, urban development
and construction activity pose a threat to the darter due to poor
stormwater runoff control and pollution prevention measures that
degrade habitat and may pose potential barriers to movement between
basins. This threat is present primarily in the 5 km (3.1 mi) of
habitat located outside of Eglin AFB. With improvement and reduction of
sediment erosion on Eglin (98.7 percent of the darter's range), we
believe that, with lessons learned, we can continue to work with off-
base partners in recovery efforts that will enable delisting of this
fish.
Additionally, one road development project has surfaced as a new
potential threat that may negatively impact the Okaloosa darter. The
Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority has proposed a new,
high-speed, toll bypass road across Eglin AFB. However, the proposed
bypass road would not prevent implementation of management actions for
the Okaloosa darter in Eglin's INRMP, which will continue to provide a
benefit to the darter. Eglin AFB has granted the Transportation
Corridor Authority conceptual agreement for the proposed bypass road.
Although this project may cross darter drainages, the agreement
includes 19 stipulations that will minimize impacts to darter
drainages. For example, road and bridge design must also address
maintenance of riparian zones and stream habitat. In addition,
placement of interchanges should be outside sensitive natural areas.
Therefore, we do not consider the proposed bypass road to be a serious
threat to Okaloosa darters. Currently, this project has yet to complete
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
requirements or consultation requirements under the Act, the latter of
which will require specific measures to avoid and minimize take of the
darter. We are seeking additional information on proposed activities or
ongoing activities like this one (see Public Comments section) during
the comment period for this proposed rule.
Eglin AFB is a military training facility and as such is divided
into 37 land test areas where weapons testing and training operations
are conducted, 12 of which are wholly or partially within darter
drainages (SAIC 2001, pp. 2 and 7). Eglin AFB maintains large portions
of the test areas in an early stage of plant succession with few mature
trees and varying degrees of soil disturbance as a result of
maintenance or military missions. Since 1998, only one section 7
consultation with Eglin under the Act (related to test area activities)
has resulted in the issuance of an incidental take statement. However,
there is a proposal to increase the military personnel and use at Eglin
through the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The BRAC
action involves establishing the Joint Strike Fighter Integrated
Training Center and relocating the Army 7th Special Forces Group
(Airborne) to Eglin AFB, increasing the number of personnel present on
base, the number of test ranges, and the amount of test area
activities. The Service has provided preliminary comments on the
military's Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement under NEPA and completed a formal consultation for other
species but not the Okaloosa darter. We do not anticipate any increase
in threats to the Okaloosa darter from this action as the new ranges
have been moved outside of Okaloosa darter habitat and Eglin has agreed
to provide a 300-ft. buffer along all darter streams when conducting
any troop maneuvers.
While poorly designed silvicultural programs can result in
accelerated soil erosion and stream sedimentation, Eglin has designed
its program within darter habitat to avoid and minimize impacts to the
aquatic ecosystems such that the program is not likely to adversely
affect the Okaloosa darter.
Pollution other than sedimentation poses a potential threat to
darters in six stream segments. While no streams in the darter's range
are designated by DEP as impaired, 6 of the 13 segments sampled using
three biological indicators were considered potentially impaired and
are on the ``3c planning list,'' which means that ``enough data and
information are present to determine that one or more designated uses
may not be attained according to the Planning List methodology.'' One
stream site has been characterized as ``severely limited by pollutants
from the landfill.'' Using comparable aquatic insect sampling methods,
the Service (Thom and Herod 2005, Table 4-1) found 12 out of the 42
sites sampled within the darter's range to be impaired. An impaired
water body is one where the biological integrity of the system as
determined through indicators has been compromised because of
pollutants, indicating t